Redstate

By spainishirish Posted in Democrats — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Democratic Party spent the better part of eternity exploiting racial, ethnic, gender, religious, and sexual orientation differences in ways designed to cobble together a winning coalition. Sometimes it has worked, sometimes it has fallen short. Often it has been ugly.

The Clintons once were masters at this game. To watch them catch immense blowback after remarks interpreted as racist has given me great pleasure. Sen. Barack Obama represents a problem for the Clintons and is an enigma to them. He is the face of the post-civil rights era, someone who transcends the issue of race.

The Clintons have painted Obama as a drug dealer, someone not to be trusted, and hinted that his religious and family background are too insidious to allow him in the White House. True to form, the Clintons have used a few throwback black leaders from the old civil rights era to advance these libels. Many people like me, who will not vote for Obama due to issues but who admire him personally, have been appalled. So the angry reactions of those who support the man have been predictable. I seriously doubt the Clintons are racist, but in the past they would have made that accusation against opponents who uttered the same slander. Certainly the Old School black leadership they have used isn't self-loathing but it is dependent on retention of identity politics.

Sergio Bindixen, a Clinton surrogate, took the nastiness further than anyone. He suggested Hispanic voters could be counted as Clinton supporters because they will not vote for a black man. As someone who lived and voted in a predominately Hispanic district for many years, I never heard such a sentiment voiced. Nonetheless, NRO reported:

...Bendixen responded this way last week when asked by Ryan Lizza why Mrs. Clinton seemed to be doing so well among Hispanics:

“The Hispanic voter—and I want to say this very carefully—has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.”

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjA4YmYyNDExNGZjZjMxMTk0MTI4OGI...

To me, this represents the bottom of what has become a very nasty Democratic primary. But I also believe this election represents the end of identity politics as an effective wedge, and would point to the above quote as the reason. It is hard to pit the same coalition's groups against one another and then expect them to rally around a party's candidate.

Ramesh Ponurro, though, thinks otherwise. In a cautionary note also at NRO today, he writes:

The feuding between Obama and Clinton is a foretaste of the general election campaign. Depending on the Democratic nominee, the Republican candidate is going to be accused of racism or sexism.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDk0NTA3MzM0ZDg2NDhmNzVkNzczODI...

I believe he is wrong about Obama but right about Clinton. Identity politics belongs to the Old Guard, as does she.