’)Historian Sean Wilentz has written a piece in The New Republic that is being promoted by anti-Obama/pro-Clinton sites as some sort of revelation. What it is is serial excuse-making, taking the racial politics that has sadly been played by the Clinton team and blaming it on Sen. Obama. For example, Wilentz sees nothing wrong racially with a Clinton campaign surrogate caricaturing Obama as a drug dealer. Apparently Mr. Wilentz has not turned on a television in this century or the last and understood the way in all black men have been slimed, regardless of whether or not we’ve even seen illegal drugs, let alone sell them.
But where is this coming from for Wilentz? He’s an avid Clinton supporter who has already written a piece in TNR pooh-poohing Sen. Obama’s candidacy. Here’s Wilentz rhapsodizing over Sen. Clinton:
I think Hillary is important because the election really is the culmination of what’s been a 40 year struggle for the Democrats to rediscover who they are. A 40-year struggle against what we’ll call Nixon-slash-Reaganism. And, simply put, she’s in the best position to be a president. Which is to say, she understands how American politics works. She understands the trajectory of American political history for the last 40 years because she’s lived it in a way that the others haven’t, really. She’s seen it at all levels, from Arkansas to Capitol Hill.
Wilentz similarly attacked Sen. Obama for invoking JFK’s presidency in relation to his candidacy. A few days later JFK’s brother, Ted Kennedy, and President Kennedy’s daughter, Caroline Kennedy, endorsed Sen. Obama as a worthy heir to JFK’s legacy.
Naturally, Taylor Marsh and her fans are pushing the Wilentz article as some sort of ‘ah ha, at last’ moment. The Clintons, they claim, are inherently anti-racist and clean in this election, while Obama is portrayed as a total sexist and a racist himself.
I hope Clinton loses, just to see what happens. Will Taylor support McCain?
I have read the paragraph from Wilentz three times and I don’t know what it means. I am a native English speaker.
If she understands “how American politics works,” why did she get her ass kicked in the Potomac primary, where she theoretically should have friends, by a first-term Senator whose opponent was Alan Wingnut Keyes? Mind you, I am all for Obama but she should have been able to reduce him to the VP silver medal fast. Perhaps with more effective political leadership (i.e. Mark Penn exiled to Belarus), she might have done so. Instead, she is about to lose Texas.
People who understand “how American politics works” don’t insult the primary/caucus electorates of a majority of the American states. This is basic.
I have searched the blogosphere high and low and have yet to find an Obama supporter who has even attempted to rebut Wilentz’s extremely well documented case. Perhaps someone could provide a link?
Wow, presidential candidates distort the words and deeds of their opponents in political advertising! Who would have thunk it? Hillary NEVER did that to Obama, of course.
Good on the New Republic(an) to expose the tactics of Obama!
/sarcasm
Just more pablum from a Hillary supporter.
cygnus, here’s a pretty good one. Not perfect, but pretty good.
I dispute your characterization that Wilentz’ case is “well documented.” He starts out accusing the Obama campaign of playing the race card, but quickly forgets his point. Soon he’s citing the lunacy of Frank Rich as evidence that Obama is a bad guy.
In the entire article, I recall just one statement about Clinton that Wilentz directly attributes to anyone associated with the Obama campaign. The rest is either unattributed or was said by someone who isn’t part of the Obama organization.
[...] It should come as no surprise that the piece is written by Sean Wilentz who while supposedly a historian should probably be described as a quasi-official flack for the Clinton campaign. [...]