The New York Times-20080128-Desperate Husband- -Op-Ed-

Return to: The_New_York_Times-20080128

Desperate Husband; [Op-Ed]

Full Text (807  words)

In the run-up to Saturday's South Carolina primary, Bill Clinton repeatedly denounced racial divisions in American politics. Indeed, he said Friday in Spartanburg, Americans are literally aching to live in a post-racial future.

But Clinton certainly hasn't been hastening that day. Quite the contrary. In Charleston, on Wednesday, he disingenuously remarked: As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender -- that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here.

Really? Who was telling him that?

Hillary was ahead in South Carolina polls as recently as early December. And in fact, women made up 61 percent of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina, blacks 55 percent. If Obama was getting votes because of race and Hillary because of gender, Hillary had a perfectly good chance to win. Bill Clinton's excuse is unconvincing and unseemly.

Then on Saturday, in Columbia, pre-spinning his wife's imminent defeat, Clinton reminded reporters out of the blue that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in '84 and '88. And he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama's run a good campaign here. He's run a good campaign everywhere.

What do Jesse Jackson's victories two decades ago have to do with this year's Obama-Clinton race? The Obama campaign is nothing like Jackson's. Obama isn't running on Jackson-like themes. Obama rarely refers to Jackson.

Clinton's comment alludes to one thing, and to one thing only: Jackson and Obama are both black candidates. The silent premise of Clinton's comment is that Obama's victory in South Carolina doesn't really count. Or, at least, Clinton is suggesting, it doesn't mean any more than Jackson's did.

But of course -- as Clinton knows very well -- Jesse Jackson didn't win (almost all-white) Iowa. He didn't come within a couple of points of prevailing in (almost all-white) New Hampshire. Nor did he, as Obama did, carry white voters in rural Nevada. And Saturday, in South Carolina, even after Bill Clinton tried to turn Obama into Jackson, Hillary defeated Obama by just three to two among white voters

So Bill Clinton has been playing the race card, and doing so clumsily. But why is he playing any cards? He wasn't supposed to be in the game. But just as Hillary was supposed to be finding her own voice, Bill decided to barge in, and to do so with a vengeance. This has been no favor to Hillary.

The proof is in the South Carolina results. Bill Clinton became the dominant story in the last few days of that campaign. According to the exit polls, about one in five South Carolina Democrats decided whom to vote for in the last three days. Among those late deciders, Hillary Clinton received only 21 percent of the vote compared with 27 percent overall. In South Carolina, many of those falling off from Clinton seemed to go to Edwards. Next week, with Edwards much less of a factor, won't many such voters go all the way to Obama?

Right now, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the polls in almost all the big states voting. She is a tough and capable campaigner, and she may be able to hold on to those leads. But it is now clear that putting her in the White House brings a hyperactive Bill back in with her. Who needs it? Liberals and Democrats can get basically the same policies without the Clinton baggage, and in choosing Obama, they can nominate a more electable candidate.

So Hillary's advantage in the polls will, I suspect, erode. The erosion could be hastened by the expected endorsement of Obama by Ted Kennedy on Monday. It could be helped further along if Al Gore hops aboard the Obama bandwagon later in the week. Meanwhile, Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader during most of the Clinton presidency, is actively supporting Obama. Talk to Democrats in D.C., and it's amazing how many who know the Clintons well -- many of whom worked in the Clinton administration -- are eager that they not return to the White House.

This week, the Clinton team will dump every bit of opposition research it has on Obama. We'll see how Obama responds.

But the moment of truth could come at the Democratic debate Thursday, in Los Angeles. Edwards may have dropped out by then. If so, it will be a one-on-one showdown. Even if he's there, he'll be effectively a bystander. Will Obama hold his own?

I'd say that even if you've (understandably) skipped the previous debates, this is one to tune into. I had a dinner scheduled Thursday night. I'm canceling it. The Giants probably won't beat the Patriots in the Super Bowl. But this could be the week Obama upsets the Clintons.