The "Native Clothing" Card

It will be interesting, to say the least, if John McCain's campaign against Barack Obama ends up being considerably less racially-charged than Hillary Clinton's campaign against Obama. Here's hoping.

(And incidentally, I agree with the commenter on Chris's post who argues that the clumsy attempts by Clinton surrogates to inject race into the conversation are probably a symptom of a mismanaged and flailing campaign, rather than something to be laid directly at HRC's door.)

Update: Marc has more on the McCain angle on this question here.

Comments

Why would you not lay a mismanaged campaign at her door?

Posted by Kim | February 26, 2008 3:42 PM

Once he secures the nomination, you can bet that any criticism of Obama will be marked at racism or hate speech by the media and the left. The libs have been waiting for this moment for about 50 years now. If you disagree with his tax plan, that makes you a racist. Don't like big government nannyism - racism. Disagree with him publicly - hate speech. Making fun of him in goofy clothes - racism. You get the point.

Posted by JBJB | February 26, 2008 3:55 PM

The real difference is that HRC has a great deal of trouble owning up to the questionable statements of her supporters, while McCain is more than happy to verbally backhand any comments he finds offensive. There will be a lot of bogus charges tossed around by both sides during the general, but here's hoping that racially-charged B.S. is dead and buried.

Posted by Adam | February 26, 2008 3:59 PM

This is preposterously naive.

"here's hoping that racially-charged B.S. is dead and buried."

And the lion will lay with the lamb.

Posted by peep | February 26, 2008 4:50 PM

Hillary displayed a sad lack of awareness in the following areas, to name only a few:

judgment (Iraq, campaign staff, starting with right-leaning Penn, and loudmouth groin-kneeing Wolfson)

judgment (changing personas every 36 hours...lately, less)

judgment (allowing WJC, the fallen one who would have best been left to continue grazing on the diplomatic and public speaking plains, to hijack the huge momentum she had coming into the first primaries)

judgment (not taking acting and voice lessons to soften her strident screechy tones)

judgement (for not seeing the Obama juggernaut as it formed right before her eyes, in a year when voter dissatisfaction may be at an all time high)

I could go on, but why...? I at one time thought she'd make a good president. After seeing how she mangled this campaign pretty well (and shame on me for expressing my true feelings, right Hillary?) I am so, so glad she will not be considered for VP.

Because Obama not only knows how to inspire, he knows how to read the tea leaves, while still being real, and true to his vision. I'm still waiting for Hillary's vision to surface, beyond the vision that is of "Me. President. Yay! What a match!"

Posted by James Lawrence | February 26, 2008 4:53 PM

This picture first appeared in late 2007. It then appeared in The National Examiner on February 4th. Next, the photo was seen on Free Republic. Finally, it appears on Drudge a full two weeks later with unsubstantiated sourcing and the media blames Clinton for it?

What is it with the pro-Obama media and its aversion to facts and the public record?

Posted by JoeCHI | February 26, 2008 5:07 PM

Joe,

The tap dancing non-denial denials from the clinton camp for most of the day didn't exactly disspell the suspicion that it came from her campaign.

My take on that is that they didn't know where it came from and we're afraid that it did come from somewhere in their campaign and danced until they could verify down enough levels to feel safe denying it and not having it come back to bite them.

And then the shameful performance by Rep Tubb-Jones showed they were sure willing to take advantage of it.

Posted by Eric k | February 26, 2008 7:30 PM

I am predicting a last minute pro-Hillary 527 ad in Texas that is a reprisal of the white hands ad but applied to illegal immigration.

"You needed that job. And you were the best qualified. But they had to give it to a Mexican, because Barack Hussein Obama supports amnesty. Is that fair?"

Posted by Aaron | February 26, 2008 10:21 PM

JBJB klavens: "Once he secures the nomination, you can bet that any criticism of Obama will be marked at racism or hate speech by the media and the left. The libs have been waiting for this moment for about 50 years now. If you disagree with his tax plan, that makes you a racist. Don't like big government nannyism - racism. Disagree with him publicly - hate speech. Making fun of him in goofy clothes - racism. You get the point."

Once the general campaign begins the Headless Whoresmen of the Right-Wing Apocalypse - Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Savage and so on - will start unloading more racist bile on Obama than even Steve Sailer can imagine. It's going to be the ugliest scene in recent American history. And JBJB and his ilk will pretend it's not happening while also claiming that the Whoresmen aren't GOP operatives.

And they'll still lose, beause John McCain is long past his prime and he has the yoke of the Bushpigs around his neck, and most Americans HATE THE GODDAMNED BUSHPIGS. And for good reasons, too. I just hope President Obama manages to put a couple of dozen of the murderous, corrupt animals in jail. They certainly have it coming. What could be better than Dick Cheney spending the coming decade asking Manuel Noriega if he's going to eat his dessert?

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 26, 2008 11:10 PM

I think I'll answer my own question - "What could be better than Dick Cheney spending the coming decade asking Manuel Noriega if he's going to eat his dessert?"

Even better would be a decade of Noriega responding, "Of course you can have my dessert, chica, right after you're done tossing my salad."

Here's wishing Cheney a decade of rich desserts.

Posted by TheBannedMoeLarryAndJesus | February 26, 2008 11:35 PM

Check out Bill in ceremonial garb himself: http://picasaweb.google.com/Kali.C.Cat/ChindiaLecture/photo#5139591469017870178

Posted by Ned | February 27, 2008 1:39 AM

You're much smarter when you're being incisive rather than vindicative, TBMLAJ. The Right Wing Machine will probably do what you're describing, and McCain could very well lose, but the Democrats doing anything about the "Bushpigs" is just ridiculous. If they could, the impeachment attempt would have succeeded. President Obama's going to offer blandishments of unity and bipartisanship, perhaps even reach over the aisle and offer McCain a spot somewhere in his cabinet, and Bush and co. will simply fade away as being hated in the history books, but otherwise go unpunished. Did anyone do anything to McNamara or Nixon at the end of the day? They certainly won't do anything to your so-called "Bushpigs."

Posted by Quietus | February 27, 2008 1:55 AM

JBJB is right. Obama will be largely impervious to criticism in the campaign and, if he wins, the presidency. After 8 years, especially if universal health care is implemented, the GOP may be as impotent and useless as the Conservative parties in Canada and the UK.

Posted by VaGuy | February 27, 2008 7:04 AM

Moe,

I've eaten a Bushpig. They are very tasty. Something of an agricultural pest, and quite ugly, but in general fairly inoffensive and a good food source. Why must you tar the name of an innocent animal by associating it with our mendacious and corrupt government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushpig

Posted by Hector | February 27, 2008 9:33 AM

JBJB is right. Obama will be largely impervious to criticism in the campaign and, if he wins, the presidency.

Right. Just like Rice, Steele, Powell, Rangel are - before we even get into the braying idiots like Kofi Annan, Al Sharpton, Allan Keyes, Maxine Waters.

Blacks only have Supreme Moral Authority from Victimhood in the Dem Party, Jewish-owned parts of the liberal media, and certain campuses.

(Interesting lesson now being taught to feminists on the Dem Party Plantation. Compared to worthy blacks, white females are clearly 2nd class in the above-mentioned organizations. The PC Establishment has made a call that blacks, gays, and likely Muslims have higher "deservedness" and greater "rights" for office or appointments than women.)

Outside true blue enclaves? The rest of the country is quite content to call a black thug a thug, and Al Sharpton and Jesse two con artists - while also praising Big Papi, Oprah, and the nice black couple down the road.

Posted by chris ford | February 27, 2008 9:45 AM

It will be interesting, to say the least, if John McCain's campaign against Barack Obama ends up being considerably less racially-charged than Hillary Clinton's campaign against Obama.

So, can we take this as a claim that when the right-wing attacks on Obama take on such a "racial charge", you'll be out in front to denounce them?

Posted by DivGuy | February 27, 2008 10:09 AM

It's not really all that surprising. The Clintons have always been willing to shovel this sort of nasty crap (remember Sister Souljah? or Bill's last minute flight back to Arkansas to execute a mentally incompetent prisoner? or the unpleasant racial tinge to many of the arguments around welfare reform?) I've never really gotten why they had such cred with the black community.

McCain, on the other hand, has never tried to make political hay out of racism or xenophobia, as far as I know.

Posted by NoahB | February 27, 2008 4:02 PM

McCain knows the race card will backfire on him -- something is in the air my friends, and it just won't work this time. It won't stick on Obama.

The Clinton camp probably helped McCain in this regard -- they've thrown some enough of the stupid crap around for McCain's camp to not waste their time with it.

Whatever they hit him with, I expect it to actually be substantive.

Posted by Naveen | February 27, 2008 9:51 PM