Hillary's "George Wallace Strategy"

Politico reports that, "in Pennsylvania and Ohio, Clinton won a stunning seven in ten white voters age 60 and older." The reason for this is obvious once you know where to look. Hillary Clinton is pursuing the same strategies as the segregationist George Wallace did in order to convince older white Democrats to vote for her.

Those of Barack Obama's generation or younger have few memories of George Wallace and have trouble relating to his racist message. Older voters, however, are well aware of Wallace's impact and many were sympathetic at the time to his message. Hillary Clinton is craftily playing off this hidden communication and bond.

The Sixties are ancient history to most of the readers of this blog, but they are alive and well in the Clinton campaign. In 1968 Hillary Clinton was 21 years old and openly working for the Republican Party. She had a good view of George Wallace's racially motivated run for the presidency. She learned from Wallace how to demagogue race while appearing to be the white knight coming to the rescue.

Like Wallace, HRC vigorously denies any racist intent, while slyly exploiting the politics of racial division. We all know how her surrogates have tried to make Obama unelectable; Penn tried to paint Obama as a cocaine dealer, Clinton claimed the race card, Carville "branded" Richardson, Rendell claimed Pennsylvanians were a bunch of racists who'll never vote for a black man.

But HRC has done herself no honors either; she refuses to acknowledge that Obama is capable of being president, she's resorted to invoking Farrakahn and Wright at every opportunity, and she leaves the door open on whether he's a Christian or not. That's the short list.

Dan T. Carter in his biography of George Wallace, "The Politics of Rage," writes how Wallace was able to cloak his racist message in a language that ordinary people could get behind;  

In speech after speech Wallace knit together the strands of racism with those of a deeply rooted moral xenophobic "plain folk" cultural outlook which equated social change with moral corruption. The creators of public policy-- the elite-- were out of touch with hardworking taxpayers who footed the bill for their visionary social engineering at home and weak-minded defense of American interests. page 345

It's almost like you're reading HRC's playbook, isn't it? Carter describes Wallace's verbal attacks that drew such large crowds and were so effective at the time;

"...his snarling attacks against hippies, civil rights "agitators", welfare recipients, atheists, beatniks, anti-war protesters, Communists, street toughs..." exhilirated his audience. page 346

Substitute the Weather Underground, Reverend Wright, Moveon.org, Louis Farrakhan, and Judas in place of George Wallace's epithets and its easy to see the Clinton strategy.

Carter reveals a little known fact about George Wallace. He knew he wasn't going to win. He was only running because he was, "damn sure going to try to keep (Hubert) Humphrey from being elected." page 358

One last quote that I found interesting;

The American "sickness" had been localized in the person of George Wallace, the "ablest demagogue of our time, with a bugle voice of venom and a gut knowledge of the prejudices of the low-income class. page 367

Since HRC is running on her husband's legacy and he's helping her shovel the manure, I couldn't help but notice that this description fits Bill to a tee.

It's hard to ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton is employing the most racist tactics employed by anyone in the modern Democratic Party. If Obama is going to defeat these despicable political acts, he is going to have to understand George Wallace.

•  Funny.

  I don't remember Wallace winning Mass, NY, NJ, Pa., and Ohio.

  by raatzie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:45:12 PM PDT

  •  That only tells me

    that the voters of the Democratic Party have degraded themselves in 2008 worse than 1968/1972.

    The Clintons race baiting has been worse than George Wallace, and while George Wallace came to regret his racism, the Clintons have moved from being pro-civil rights to a dog whistling and race baiting machine.

    by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:50:04 PM PDT

    •  Are You

      Still planning on voting for John McCain in November?

      by bink on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:52:08 PM PDT

      •  I plan on voting for Barack Obama

        in November.  I will worry what I will do if the Democrats don't give me that opportunity at a later time.  

        by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:54:00 PM PDT

        •  i believe i'll be voting for obama regardless.

          fwiw.

          by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:14:35 PM PDT

          •  If Obama is not the nominee

            I'm not yet sure what I will do.  It depends on the campaign and how close the election is.  I have ruled out voting for Clinton under any circumstances.  But all other options are on the table.

            by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 07:08:02 PM PDT

    •  More Obamacan hyperbole.

      Y'all feel it slipping away, don't you?

      by raatzie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:05:46 PM PDT

      •  Far from hyperbole

        they are facts, which are something you corrupt Clinton thugs like to ignore.

        by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:11:07 PM PDT

        •  Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

          Flattery will get you nowhere.

          Of course, neither will Obama.

          by raatzie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:15:07 PM PDT

      •  Obama has already beaten Clinton

        Realistically, it's not possible for Clinton to win, as I'm sure you'll readily admit. I think what we're trying to discuss here is how the Clinton's have destroyed their own reputations. Long after this is over, Obama can stand tall with how he has carried himself in this campaign, but the Clinton's have forever tarnished their good name.

        by Aaron Dahl on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:26:27 PM PDT

      •  Slipping away to a lair,

        Look out--it's not sniper fire, its more Clinton selling us all up river...can you say Glass-Steagall repeal?  Yea and ppl think she will get out of Iraq. Not likely.

        by Shhs on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:39:42 PM PDT

  •  In 1972, Wallace did win Dem. primaries in

    Michigan and Florida, two of Hillary's favorite states.

    by bdbd on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:53:30 PM PDT

    •  Yeah I was just going to post this

      Damn this was good.

      by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:54:27 PM PDT

    •  Wallace won Michigan with a majority

      as well.

      The funny thing, is that 16 years later, Jesse Jackson won it with a majority.

      by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:55:24 PM PDT

  •  Nixon won it all

    after studying Wallace's campaign and employing the same tactics. It should be remembered that HRC attended the Republican National Convention which nominated Nixon in 1968.

    by Aaron Dahl on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:01:19 PM PDT

    •  That was also when she permanently ...

      ...left the Republican Party. As for Carter "revealing a little known fact," that Wallace knew he wasn't going to win, good grief. Not only did Wallace know it, everybody knew it. He was running as an American Independent, a third party that had minimal presence in a number of states, but clout in the South and able to draw enough votes from Humphrey to scotch his chances in three big states in the North.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:07:30 PM PDT

    •  Clinton is clearly

      a Democratic Nixon.  She will govern from the center-right, the way that Nixon governed from the center-left at the time.  Like Nixon, she will have to find some way to keep the activist left on board, Nixon used attacks on hippies and anti-war protesters to keep the Goldwaterites (similar to the activist left) on board, even while his policies infuriated them.  

      The difference is that Reagan didn't really get any traction in 1968, Nixon may well have trashed him the same way that Clinton is trashing Obama.

      by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:09:19 PM PDT

    •  Given the Right Hon. Rev. Wright, . . .

      . . . do you really want to play guilt by association?

      by raatzie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:10:35 PM PDT

      •  It only works when there's really guilt. n/t

        by second gen on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:50:44 PM PDT

        •  Or a double standard. eom.

          by raatzie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:12:24 PM PDT

      •  you're creepy. are you a dittohead for HRC?

        operation chaos n' all...

        by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:18:52 PM PDT

        •  shee-it - i pegged it!

          http://www.dailykos.com/...

          by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:21:05 PM PDT

•  This was dumb on Wallace's part

  He was only running because he was, "damn sure going to try to keep (Hubert) Humphrey from being elected." page 358

  Wallace would have been more effective in this goal had he endorsed Nixon.  Didn't matter anyway, but Wallace probably hurt Nixon overall, and in the North Wallace voters were 50/50 from both.

  by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:46:26 PM PDT

•  Possible Stretch Analogue Would Be

  Wallace's candidacy was about preventing blacks from gaining power. The Clintons seem to be about preventing the people from gaining power. Without any doubt, liberals and activists.

  by Gooserock on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:47:20 PM PDT

  •  Well

    The Clintons seem to be about preventing the people from gaining power. Without any doubt, liberals and activists.

    you can add blacks to the list.

    by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:51:43 PM PDT

•  Another 1972 candidate is a better analogy

  She's more like Scoop Jackson (D-Boeing), who uttered his infamous "acid, amnesty, and abortion" comment about George McGovern in a hit-and-run campaign stop in Nebraska. Jackson, like HRC, was one of the biggest hawks in the Democratic Party rookery.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:52:08 PM PDT

  •  According to Robert Novak, who reported ...

    ...the "acid, amnesty and abortion" comment, it wasn't Jackson who first said it, but rather a Senator from Missouri named Tom Eagleton. See here.

    MR. RUSSERT:  Let me read another excerpt from the book, and, Bob Shrum, I think you will be interested in this one.  Regarding George McGovern, "April 25," 1972, "George McGovern captured the Massachusetts primary.  The next day I phoned Democratic politicians around the country, who agreed with my assessment that blue-collar workers voting for McGovern did not understand what he really stood for.  One was quoted in the fourth paragraph" "Evans & Novak column April 27th:  ‘One liberal senator feels McGovern’s surging popularity depends on public ignorance of his acknowledged public positions. "The people don’t know McGovern is for amnesty, abortion and legalization of pot," he told us." One "middle America—Catholic middle America, in particular"’"—once they find out, "‘"he’s dead."’

    "With that, McGovern was the triple-A candidate who supported ‘amnesty, abortion and acid.’ The triple-A label was to haunt McGovern into the autumn campaign against Nixon.

    "I had not been in touch with" my source "Senator X for 30 years, when I began working on these memoirs in 2003.  I wrote him—now Mr. X, retired from the Senate, asking whether I could identify him.  His answer was swift and succinct:  ‘Dear Bob, what I told you, it was off the record, and I still consider it that way.’" Well, since that time, Mr. X, Senator X died, and he turned out to be, Bob Novak?

    MR. NOVAK:  Thomas Eagleton.  His—the—Mr. McGovern’s brief running mate. He was picked for—as his vice presidential nominee, later resigned from the ticket.  But he—that was a secret that was kept until his, his death, and people are—a lot of—a lot of people said I had made up the name.  I had gone to Tom Eagleton and asked him if I could clear myself, since the campaign was long over, use his name.  He said "Oh, he had to run for re-election.  The McGovernites would kill him if they knew he had said that." But it was Tom Eagleton.

    Whether Novak is trustworthy on this is another question, but he did report the original comment.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:58:00 PM PDT

    •  How interesting

      Thanks for bringing the Novak article into the discussion. Hardly a day goes by when I don't learn something new here.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM PDT

  •  Jackson was the original neocon

    He was a cancer on the Democratic Party. A shame Washington voters kept sending him back to DC (though he did a good job of bringing the bacon to the Evergreen State).

    by eugene on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 04:58:51 PM PDT

    •  Unlike today's neocons

      Scoop did have some reedeming qualities.  Jackson was strongly pro-labor, he was a strong environmentalist, fought the Alaskan pipeline to the end.  He also was one of the strongest opponents of the oil companies.

      Jackson, unlike Lieberbush, never went and backed a Rethug, his opposition to Carter in 1980 came in the form of his support for Ted Kennedy, who was even more dovish than Carter by that point.

      by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:24:19 PM PDT

•  Obviously you don't want those voters in November

  I mean, if you did, you wouldn't call them racists.  When you call Clinton a racist it's just laughable, and she can defend herself, but there's something politically suicidal and generally depraved about going after the most likely-to-vote demographic in your own party, on no stronger evidence than the fact that they favored a white candidate over a black one.  

  by Rich in PA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:27:57 PM PDT

  •  Yes all blacks are racist and always vote for the

    black candidate over the white one.  That's how all the Gov. races turned out in 2006.  Whatever Rich, I hope you happy in life, and you find some comfort in your religious/moral grounding, bc at least on the internet, you come across as a think amoral person.  Who does not care for the facts, or realities of anyone else.

    Actually I hope you are a really sad sack that just post to get paid.

    by Shhs on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:43:23 PM PDT

    •  Jerk store! Jerk store!

      Sorry, I don't have any real response to this.  Now if you'll pardon me, I'm going to go worship in my own way.

      by Rich in PA on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:50:01 PM PDT

  •  Rendell called them racists

    I didn't call HRC a racist, I said she's employed racist tactics. She clearly wants to destroy Barack Obama and is willing to jettison the black vote in the process, so your points are just as valid against her.

    by Aaron Dahl on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:44:24 PM PDT

  •  impossible to court racists in this particular

    DEMOCRATIC primary if you are, indeed, a DEMOCRAT.

    i'm sure you see the obvious nature of this problem.  oh, shit - you mean we're gonna lose the racist asshole vote?  

    man the decks!

    by jj24 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 06:22:56 PM PDT

•  Hillary's not Wallace.

  Not even close.

  Even Wallace wasn't Wallace.  He lost a primary in Alabama to an opponent who was even more racist.  George vowed he would never be "out-niggered" again.  He readily made a deal with Bobby Kennedy that would include standing symbolically in front of the door when James Meredith came to register, but would step aside in the face of troops and a court order.  

  In the event, behind the scenes - and later, in front of the scenes, after he was the victim of an attempted assassination - he actually carried on a productive dialogue with Black leaders, and doled out a lot of patronage to Blacks.  

  Wallace wasn't all bad.  He was quite a populist.  I hated him back when.  Later events have softened my view.  I did pity poor Lurleen.  

  As events recede into the rear-view mirror,  perspectives change.  Blacks in Alabama forgave Wallace, because he opened a dialogue with them.

  And so it will be with Hillary.  I don't for a second believe that she is a racist.  Bill, ditto.  Their remarks have been stretched out of context as much as those of Rev. Wright.

  I will admit, however, that Hillary took a VERY cheap shot at Obama, when she said the she had no reason to believe that Obama was a Muslim.  For that, I consign her to the flames.

  by willb48 on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:32:16 PM PDT

  •  Yeah I think you're right in a way

    the Clintons IMO make Wallace look like MLK.

    by IhateBush on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:59:33 PM PDT

•  Alright, settle down.

  Clinton's already lost; no need to demonize her further (beyond what she's done to herself, obviously).

  by RoscoeOfAlabama on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 05:53:21 PM PDT