Those Uncontrollable Campaign Surrogates: Lowery Cites "Slave Mentality"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:26:28 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sometimes, you just can not control them, the campaign surrogates. Here is Obama supporter Rev. Joseph Lowery being offensive:

Just when you thought supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had gotten past this race thing. In an address to the Hungry Club at Butler Street YMCA in downtown Atlanta, the Rev. Joseph Lowery re-stoked the fires on Wednesday when he told the largely African-American audience that “a slave mentality” was fueling black doubts about Obama’s chances of capturing the White House. “The slavery mentality compels us to say, ‘We can’t win, we can’t do,’” said Lowery, an avid Obama supporter and a co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Strong words, when you consider that they include people like U.S. Rep. John Lewis or former Atlanta mayor Andrew Young.

Oh I know, some will come tell me he was NOT talking about African American Clinton supporters, he REALLY wasn't. Suure. And Bob Johnson was not talking about Obama's drug use. Tell me another one. In any event, I feel confident that the Obama campaign had NOTHING to do with this. They are not stupid. The pitfalls of campaign surrogates and supporters is what is at work here. People should keep that in mind the next time some idiot Clinton supporter says something stupid and offensive.

< The Reagan Problem: Obama's Inroads With Liberals Could Erode | Karl Rove's Strategy for Beating Clinton and Obama >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Those Uncontrollable Campaign Surrogates: Lowery Cites "Slave Mentality" | 45 comments (45 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Those Uncontrollable Surrogate (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by GOPmurderedconscience on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:12:36 AM EST

Great post BTD.

Now seat back and watch Andrew Sullivan blame it on Hillary Clinton.

One big difference... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by burnedoutdem on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:33:54 AM EST

Is that Clinton stood on the stage with Johnson; she smiled and applauded and thanked him for speaking. She outwardly endorsed his statement, and it looked to many that her staff helped to engineer the performance.

In the case of Rev. Lowery, he was hosting his own event. Obama and his staff had nothing to do with it. Clearly, people are going to say that Obama should control his surrogates, but he and his staff weren't there. It's unfortunate that Obama will have to walk this back, but I think BTD is right that he should probably repudiate the comment.

Regardless, to compare the effects of the Johnson comment to the Lowery comment is to compare apples to oranges; Clinton didn't take issue until she saw the fall out, and Obama had no involvement with it in the first place.

yup.. andrew cuomo did not speak for the campaign (5.00 / 2) (#7)
by sammiemorris on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:34:15 AM EST

either.. but that didn't stop people from calling him a Clinton surrogate.

I'm still not over the Jesse Jackson Jr. tears for Katrina remark. TO me, that was the most explicit example of the race card.

Uncle Tom (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:49:03 AM EST

This is the same thing as calling blacks that vote for Clinton "Uncle Tom" which is highly effective. Also not a good idea in the sense of fair play.

: Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by squeaky on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:02:27 AM EST

People are smarter than that. That is like imagining that jews would be cowered into voting for Lieberman because a vote against him would be self hating.
Ridiculous.

The Race Card's Diminishing Returns (none / 0) (#1)
by JoeCHI on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:43:06 AM EST

The Obama campaign LOVES playing the race card, it seems.

It will guarantee a win in SC, but it will kill him with Reagan Democrats, Latinos, and Asians.

I am certain (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:48:37 AM EST

the Obama campaign had nothing to do with this.

My point is that campaign surrogates and supporters are well nigh uncontrollable.

All you can do is repudiate this stuff.


Why this sudden conversion on your part? (none / 0) (#16)
by oculus on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:06:10 AM EST

No change at all (none / 0) (#41)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:38:32 PM EST

What do you think is a chnage here?


In a word: Andrew Cuomo (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 01:57:25 AM EST

: O.K. it was two words. (none / 0) (#45)
by oculus on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 02:18:04 AM EST

And I don't suppose you ever really sd. Clinton campaign could have controlled A. Cuomo, only that campaign should have dissavowed his comment.

The race card (3.00 / 2) (#5)
by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:30:54 AM EST

This was an African American, talking to other African Americans. I'm sorry but talking about race in such a a scenario is not "playing the race card."


Good point (none / 0) (#8)
by burnedoutdem on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:34:30 AM EST

I hadn't thought of that...


That's an artificial construct (none / 0) (#14)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:59:54 AM EST

The original charge against Obama was that he was claiming the Clinton's were playing the race card in order to shore up AA support in SC. - in other words AA speaking to AA about race and playing the race card.

Please note my interpretation of the original charge is neither to endorse nor deny the that charge. I am agnostic on the charges of racism/race card against either campaign.

Please further note that my pointing out the problems with Jgarza's statement is not to imply Obama or his campaign had any role in the Rev. Lowery's statements. I subscribe to BTD's interpretation of the Rev.'s statements.


so now we have to post (none / 0) (#17)
by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:06:11 AM EST

our complete history in order to not get people mad at us? sigh.


Race is still a touchy subject in America (none / 0) (#19)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:10:57 AM EST

Fact of life I am afraid. Maybe as a middle aged Southerner, I reflexively think about how words on race can be misinterpreted (as if last week wasn't lesson enough).

I wasn't posting my history, I was giving my position. Slight difference.


Touchy (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by squeaky on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:14:31 AM EST

That is an understatement. The fact that it is such a repressed part of American culture keeps its pulse going strong.


: you may be right squeaky (none / 0) (#22)
by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:23:33 AM EST

I meant in this context on this board.
anyway - off topic- sorry to change the flow here.

yes - I meant the ame thing (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:15:09 AM EST

position and history as the same thing in this context. I have read your posts and you come off very reasonable - I would not have any negative interpretation of your opinions/positions on race nor would I assume people would think so of mine I did simply by stating an opinion that isnt the same as someone else has posted.


"Agnostic": the word of the week! (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:10:24 AM EST

If you accept that construct (none / 0) (#23)
by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:25:12 AM EST

then every time Hillary mentions her gender, or anyone calls someone like tweety sexist, they are playing the gender card to shore up her support among women.

I don't accept that as "playing the gender card" nor do i accept this as playing the race card.


Please re-read my post (none / 0) (#24)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:42:40 AM EST

I didn't endorse that argument.

I merely said your construct that AA speaking to AA cannot by definition be playing the race card is faulty.

If that wasn't what you meant in your original post, my apologies- but it did look as though you were making an absolute statement.


Your rational (none / 0) (#25)
by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:58:39 AM EST

was that some people have a different def. of playing the race card, therefore my definition is faulty, but you don't accept this opposing rational, so I'm not really getting your point.


then I'll say it for me - (none / 0) (#27)
by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:28:33 AM EST

using term "slave mentality" is using race in a very emotional way and it indeed playing a card NO MATTER WHO SAYS IT.


Thanks (none / 0) (#29)
by athyrio on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:52:26 AM EST

Judith, cause I completely and throughly agree. There is a subtle racism in this country. It is there no matter whether we wish to recognize it or not. Puts Clinton in the position of damned if she responses and damned if she doesnt respond...Not good....


Well (none / 0) (#32)
by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM EST

any reference to the history of AA in America is going to be "very emotional." So again by that definition no one is allowed to talk about it.


we were talking about (none / 0) (#33)
by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:14:43 PM EST

a specific phrase that was used.


: i (none / 0) (#35)
by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:48:02 PM EST

agree it was unfortunate, i was responding(in this little string) to the "diminished returns of the race card" statement, one that is equally unfortunate.

That's not even close (none / 0) (#31)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:15:23 PM EST

Your definition was faulty because it was absolute; its not that some people have a different definition.

Common sense should tell you that if the original argument was true, AA were speaking to AA and using the race card. Specifically the original complaint that HRC campaign used the term fairy tale (and that such use was racist) in connection with the Obama campaign.

Conversely HRC making use of Tweety's overt sexism is no more gender card playing then AA making use of this ad in a similar fashion.

As I said I am agnostic as to "who shot John" in this because I see it as destructive and I am willing to take each side at their word, no questions asked.

if they dont speak for the campaign (none / 0) (#4)
by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:29:24 AM EST

then why call them surrogates? Maybe they are just people - like Lowry - expressing their own point of view and, like you say, should be repudiated if the campaign does not agree. Very easy to do - say "Lowry does not speak for this campaign."

If they are 'just people' (none / 0) (#11)
by Warren Terrer on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:36:13 AM EST

and not even surrogates, why should the campaign repudiate what they say?


: because it made the news (none / 0) (#12)
by Judith on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:39:15 AM EST

(isnt that why it is here) and because to say nothing implies agreement.
doesnt surrogate mean one has some kind of recognized role with the campaign?

This to quote (none / 0) (#9)
by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:34:41 AM EST

Obama this is an "ill advised" statement. won't get him in trouble though. It would be for more ill advised for Clinton to try and score points off it.

: *far more (none / 0) (#10)
by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:35:59 AM EST

instead of for more

Actually, I found the Monica (none / 0) (#26)
by Geekesque on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:15:32 AM EST

comment more painful to read.

: Where is that? (none / 0) (#28)
by oculus on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 11:37:49 AM EST

But A, the distinction between the two camps (none / 0) (#30)
by bronte17 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 12:06:11 PM EST

could not be more glaring.

While the Reverend Lowery invokes a passionate plea to rise above the "can't win, can't do" frame of mind, the Hillary camp stokes the fires of racism itself with "shuckin' and jivin'" and "lazy" and making the world perfectly aware that Obama is... gasp!... black. The United States is an extremely racist nation and for the Hillary camp or anyone associated with her to utilize the stereotypes and dog whistles is irredeemable.

So, your analogy that these two campaigns and their surrogates are "equal" in their "pitfalls" is misguided.

...The pitfalls of campaign surrogates and supporters is what is at work here. People should keep that in mind the next time some idiot Clinton supporter says something stupid and offensive.

They are not equal in the offensiveness.

Whatever (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 01:34:35 PM EST

Either way, the campaigns can't control some of these folks.

For the record, I do not at all agree with you value judgments on this.


I didn't intend for my words to be so harsh (none / 0) (#39)
by bronte17 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:26:35 PM EST

here.

But, I don't regret my sentiment or intention. Racism is too ugly.


Racism is too ugly (none / 0) (#40)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 08:37:07 PM EST

Precisely why Lowery's statements are clearly the most egrgeious. They are NAKED racism.


What? Wait... (none / 0) (#42)
by bronte17 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:10:54 PM EST

Compare this:

... "The slavery mentality compels us to say, `We can't win, we can't do,'" said Lowery...

With this:

...The teachers who tell our daughters, "You are just as smart and capable as the boys, don't you fail to live up to your potential."

One is saying "don't give in to the racism", the other is saying "don't give in to the sexism."

Ummm, I don't want to argue with you, but "don't give in" is not the most egregious comment out there. It is the insidious racism through the dog whistle language that is ugly.


: I am not going to argue with you (none / 0) (#43)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:23:14 PM EST

because frankly, I think you have no argument at all.
He is saying that those who are for Hillary are harborong a slave mentality.
That is racist. It is not even arguable.
I have no idea what you think your point is.

Race comments will continue (none / 0) (#36)
by scalibur on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 02:29:02 PM EST

I think the racially tinged remarks will continue throughout the campaign, but thanks to the Kumbaya moment at the debate, they will be dismissed as irrelevant.

They're just unavoidable - some people can't control what comes out of their mouths.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/17/joke-leaves-em-gasping/

For example, this guy said Obama would have to change the name of the White House. He's not even tied to either campaign, so it's silly to accuse either side of race baiting here. I just don't see a reason for this to be a story anymore, or else we'll be talking about it for the next 2 months/10 months/4 years/8 years...

Bob Johnson (none / 0) (#37)
by Jgarza on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 03:10:49 PM EST

apologized

: Good. (none / 0) (#38)
by oculus on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 06:42:15 PM EST