Right Wing Nut House

For a party based on putting Americans into little boxes that identify them by their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the Democrats have been able to skate through for about 35 years with no major clashes among their many and varied interest groups which threatened the unity of the party.

Oh there have been ideological struggles to be sure. But as long as the party kept putting up white males for the top spot, clashes between people pigeonholed in those boxes was avoided.

Well, it can’t be avoided any longer:

After staying on the sidelines in the first year of the campaign, race and to a lesser extent gender have burst into the forefront of the Democratic presidential contest, thrusting Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton into the middle of a sharp-edged social and political debate that transcends their candidacies.

In a tense day of exchanges by the candidates and their supporters, Mrs. Clinton suggested on Sunday that Mr. Obama’s campaign, in an effort to inject race into the contest, distorted remarks she had made about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Obama tartly dismissed Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion, adding that “the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign then attacked Mrs. Clinton for failing to repudiate one of her top black supporters for “engaging in the politics of destruction” with an apparent reference to Mr. Obama’s acknowledged drug use in the past. And throughout the day, supporters of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama each accused the other of injecting race in search of political gain.

The exchanges created apprehension among many of their supporters who viewed this moment — if perhaps inevitable, given the nature of the contest — as divisive for Democrats. At the same time, it offered a portrait of a party struggling through entirely unfamiliar terrain that has been brought into relief by Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa and Mrs. Clinton’s in New Hampshire.

Hillary owes her victory in New Hampshire to the spectacular turnout of women to support her candidacy. Fully 57% of Democratic primary voters were women and Clinton received nearly 50% of their votes far outpacing Obama’s total. If women are going to support her and come out for her in such numbers, Obama is truly in trouble.

Meanwhile, we have yet to have a contest in a state where Mr. Obama’s race will give him a huge advantage. The latest CBS-New York Times poll shows that Obama garners nearly 50% of the black vote, besting Clinton by 15%. That same poll shows Hillary over Obama by 16% among women. Hence, we have the makings for a lot of potential friction that neither campaign wants but won’t be able to avoid.

Obama actually carried the women’s vote in Iowa, showing a measure of strength that absolutely floored the Clinton campaign. In fact, part of the feeling that Obama would sweep through New Hampshire was the stunning way in which women flocked to his candidacy in Iowa.

For whatever reason - many point to the “Crying Moment” as key - women came home to vote for Hillary. Perhaps part of it was the historic nature of her candidacy. Perhaps it was the feeling that the press was ganging up on her. The fact is, Hillary can thank women for her victory in New Hampshire and she knows it. Now comes the trick of maximizing that vote throughout the primaries.

For Obama, it is a little different story. With black support rising for him, he is expected to do very well in the deep south where African Americans make up from 40% to 50% of the vote in most states. He is comfortably ahead in South Carolina, the first southern state to hold a primary (1/26) and is making up ground fast in Florida.

Due to the historic nature of both their candidacies, it could have been predicted that some kind of row would erupt where the candidate’s identity was involved. After all, Obama’s race and Hillary’s gender are the ultimate cards to play for and against them. And Obama apparently either was planning to get off the mark first or it just happened that the Clinton’s played into his hands. It turns out that his campaign had already prepared an attack that would accuse the Clintons of raising the issue of race. A memo has surfaced that cataloged what the Obama people consider racially insensitive remarks:

In a tense day of exchanges by the candidates and their supporters, Mrs. Clinton suggested on Sunday that Mr. Obama’s campaign, in an effort to inject race into the contest, distorted remarks she had made about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Mr. Obama tartly dismissed Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion, adding that “the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign then attacked Mrs. Clinton for failing to repudiate one of her top black supporters for “engaging in the politics of destruction” with an apparent reference to Mr. Obama’s acknowledged drug use in the past. And throughout the day, supporters of Mrs. Clinton and of Mr. Obama each accused the other of injecting race in search of political gain.

The exchanges created apprehension among many of their supporters who viewed this moment — if perhaps inevitable, given the nature of the contest — as divisive for Democrats. At the same time, it offered a portrait of a party struggling through entirely unfamiliar terrain that has been brought into relief by Mr. Obama’s victory in Iowa and Mrs. Clinton’s in New Hampshire.

Their identity politics is a double edged sword. Each knows that an attack that appears directed at Obama’s race or Clinton’s gender risks energizing the supporters of that candidate and can also loose the dogs of the media on the attacker as the press sees itself, as always, as a referee in these matters. On the other hand, accusing your opponent of falsely using the identity card is akin to crying rape where the victim was a willing partner. And in Obama’s case, it appears he was ready to unleash the race card using somewhat innocuous statements as “proof” of the Clinton’s “insensitivity.”

On the other side, the Clinton’s are hardly innocent. Using a loose cannon like BET’s Bob Johnson - inoculated against charges of using the race card by virtue of his African American heritage - was virtually a guarantee for some racial fireworks directed against Obama. As it was, Johnson alluded to Obama’s past drug use in a rather elliptical - and deniable way. Both the Clinton’s and Johnson now say that the TV exec was referring to Obama’s days as a community organizer. The snickers from one and all after that explanation should tell the Clinton’s that they need to be a little more subtle next time.

Clinton has already tried to play the gender card, especially at the debates where attacks by the other candidates on her became the guys ganging up against the girl. But each time, the press has called her out for it and the gambit failed to elicit the kind of response among women that she was looking for. And then came the day before the New Hampshire primary and the emotional moment in the coffee shop. Suddenly, the gender card was irrelevant - even though, intentionally or not, it had just been played. Now it was “cracking of the ice queen” that played out and Hillary Clinton recaptured the women who had deserted her in Iowa.

Where this is headed is anyone’s guess. Obama risks a backlash if it is perceived he is using the race card unnecessarily and solely for political gain. Clinton, on the other hand, must be able to attack Obama in ways that don’t bring race to the fore. She tried the experience vs. inexperience attack and that didn’t work. Now she is trying to co-opt Obama’s message of change by trying to show that she has worked for real change for many years. That seemed to play well among a very important constituency; the over 55 age group. The oldsters vote in higher percentages than any other group of Americans and are vital in the large states voting on Super Tuesday.

But the race card for Obama is just too good a weapon not to use. And judging by that memo and what it represents, I have no doubt that the candidate will make use of that weapon as often as the thinks he can get away with it.

This then is where identity politics has taken the Democrats. Walking on egg shells one moment and shamelessly pandering to their respective constituencies the next. It has the potential of splintering the party if one side goes to far. But I doubt that will happen. Self-interest being the driving force in both camps and given the temperament of both candidates, I would suppose that there will be limits to the lengths to which they will go in savaging each other.