Count Craig Crawford as a dissenting voice in the media storm blaming the Clintons for the injection of race into the Dem primaries. The Congressional Quarterly columnist and MSNBC political analyst offered his unconventional wisdom on a special Saturday edition of Morning Joe today.
CRAIG CRAWFORD: I never understood exactly what Bill Clinton said that was supposed to interject race, actually. I know he was arguing at arm's length with Obama about the war and some other issues. It wasn't clear to me -- I mean the most direct reference to race I saw in this campaign was interjected by the media after New Hampshire trying to say that for some reason Obama lost New Hampshire because of racism. I never followed that one either.
View video here.
JOE SCARBOROUGH: So is it the media's fault that Barack Obama is losing support among white voters?
CRAWFORD: I'm just saying that's the first time I heard this come up. All that talk [by the media] about the "Bradley effect" in New Hampshire was the first time I heard race directly debated in this campaign. Of course I don't even think there was a Bradley effect in the Bradley race. That was more about gun control, but that's another story. That's an old debate.
And a bit later . . .
CRAWFORD: So Bill Clinton says that Barack's claims about being anti-war are a fairy tale. I mean, we can debate that, but how is that interjecting race? Even when you talk about the surrogates who brought up Obama's teen-age drug use, or alluded to it in some way, how is that talking about race? It seems to me it's almost racist to say that's racism to refer to drug use because white people take drugs too. I really would like to know specifically what people think Bill Clinton said to interject race in this campaign.
We can debate Crawford's analysis, but credit him for bucking the avalanche of conventional wisdom. I'd say he raises good questions about the media's role in making race an issue in this campaign. Any takers out there in the MSM?
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Whisper campaigns
January 26, 2008 - 09:57 ET by RJ"I never understood exactly what Bill Clinton said that was supposed to interject race."
That's the point of a whisper campaign, Craig....and of course the media has "most direct reference." They use broadaxes, while the Clinton machine uses rapiers.
As far as Bill Clinton himself is concerned, code words and button-pushing topics that speak to racism are a fact of life, and Clinton is a skilled speaker who knows exactly how to push those buttons.
Rapiers? Hell, they use
January 26, 2008 - 10:15 ET by motherbeltRapiers? Hell, they use scalpels!
One doesn't even realize one's cut until the blood starts to flow.
Come on, HRC was out there one day talking about how "proud" she was of Obama. HUH???? Why on earth should she be "proud" of anything he does? How's that for condescension?
And her running theme of having a woman and an African-American running....
They are very subtle when they want to be.
Just having Hillary or one
January 26, 2008 - 22:51 ET by Scout FinchJust having Hillary or one of her surrogates saying "let's not bring race or gender into this campaign" brings race and gender directly into the campaign! Brilliant, Hillary! Too bad the media isn't wise to you!
http://www.rasmussen... Ha
January 26, 2008 - 10:15 ET by Right2thePointhttp://www.rasmussen...
Has an indepth analysis and impact review of this whole idea related to the SC Dem primary by Dick Morris.
I can't recommend it enough for reading to understand the background and dynamic of what is happening and why.
Morris was on H&C last
January 26, 2008 - 10:30 ET by motherbeltMorris was on H&C last night talking about that. They want HRC to lose in SC, by losing the black vote. They hope that will create a backlash of white voters going for Her Royal Clintoness on Super Tuesday.
Race? What race? There ain't no racial issues here!
Yes, as I said, they can be very subtle when they want.
Her Royal Clintoness can't win in the general election without the 97% black vote Democrats traditionally garner. If they alienate enough black voters with their tactics against Obama, they may sit out.
But I'm sure they have considered this, and are confident they can later bring them back into the fold. Watch...the Reverends will complain about their tactics. Her Royal Clintoness and her husband will go and kiss their rings, Bill will bite his lip, she will choke up a little, and in the end they will be out there talking about how she did some bad things, but she's seen the light and is still their girl.
Mark, what can you tell us about this Craig Crawford guy?
January 26, 2008 - 10:32 ET by RJI just saw him on MSNBC, and he was literally ranting. In spite of being repeatedly asked to let others talk, he kept shouting down anyone who disagreed with his claim that the Clintons have not injected race into the campaign.
Is there a chance he's a Clinton stooge?
Wow! That was fast!
January 26, 2008 - 10:45 ET by RJHis Wikipedia profile has already been updated to include today's "controversy." Wonder if Mr. Crawford is keeping himself updated?
Also, I see that he worked for Jimmy Carter, John Glenn and Walter Mondale. The odds that he's in the Clinton's back pocket are increasing....at the very least, he's sticking up for the Democrat establishment against the upstart who doesn't know his place.
The Clintons are masters at
January 26, 2008 - 11:04 ET by motherbeltThe Clintons are masters at doing or saying things and then denying the fact. Their ability to deny, with a straight face, that they haven't done or said something, is just amazing.
Just like Her Royal Clintoness in the debate, saying she thought drivers' licenses for illegals was a good idea, and then looking at Dodd and saying no, Chris I didn't say that.
They are shameless. And Crawford has apparently taken over George Stephanopolous's old "That explanation is no longer operative" job.
LOL! Proof that Craig Crawford is a sleeze bag
January 26, 2008 - 11:25 ET by RJI just took another look at his Wikipedia profile, and he's been updating it AGAIN to make himself appear to have taken the "high road" in his disgraceful performance this morning, when he appeared for the second time.
I saw that second performance (see above), and it didn't happen the way Crawford now describes it.
Craig Crawford is a liar.
RJ, what's been updated
January 26, 2008 - 13:33 ET by motherbeltRJ, what's been updated again? I can't tell. You should start saving or caching the pages, to keep track.
You said "see above" where?
Sorry if I wasn't clear, motherbelt
January 26, 2008 - 13:54 ET by RJEarly this morning, immediately after his 1st appearance on Morning Joe, Crawford (?) added the headline "CONTROVERSY" to his existing Wikipedia Profile. He put in a couple of generic sentences about his claim that the Clintons weren't pushing race. After reading that, I commented on his 2nd appearance on Morning Joe like this:
"I just saw him on MSNBC, and he was literally ranting. In spite of being repeatedly asked to let others talk, he kept shouting down anyone who disagreed with his claim that the Clintons have not injected race into the campaign."
About an hour later, he added a new paragraph that made him appear to be calm, logical and rational....the complete opposite of what happened and what I described above.
Like I said, the man is a liar.
Gotcha, thanks. That's
January 26, 2008 - 16:08 ET by motherbeltGotcha, thanks.
That's hilarious. He even added the new heading of "controversy"?
Oh my, he's challenging Olbermann in the self-indulgence department.
Crawford is a Clinton
January 26, 2008 - 11:19 ET by mikejCrawford is a Clinton tool.
The media injected this so-called racism because the Clintons, especially her thighness Hillary, would never act like that, right Craig...you Jew Bastard, no wait I'm sorry, I mean "7-11 working Ghandi looking person serving slurpees"
Barack is just starting to feel the effects of the Clinton machine.
The left can talk about Karl Rove all they want, but Carville, Forehead Begala and Clinton put Rove to shame in political tricks.
All You Need to Know About Crawford
January 26, 2008 - 11:45 ET by Del Dolemontehttp://www.huffingto...
I'm trying to get this
January 26, 2008 - 12:08 ET by MidAmericaI'm trying to get this straight. Am I to assume the clinton campaign and the media are separate entities?
Let's See...
January 26, 2008 - 21:24 ET by Del DolemonteFormer Clinton lackey George Steffy = Host of ABC "This Week"
Former Clinton lackies Cajun Serpent and Forehead = CNN commentators (who are on "hiatus" temporarily)
And then there are the countless other Clinton butt-kissers like ABC's Claire Shipman, who trashed Linda Tripp last week on the 10th anniversary of Monica-gate, and Baba Wawa, who said we shouldn't make jokes about Moanica Lewinsky.
You're right-they are totally disconnected.
What Race Issues? MLK for one...
January 26, 2008 - 12:37 ET by exLibHillary stated that MLK didn't really do the "Great" thing, it was the white guy in the governement that "really" did the great thing by signing a bill into law.
This is the true Hillary and Bill Socialist show. The true power, movers and shakers, the doers are the ones who sit in their DC offices and "sign" bills into law. And of course buys like John Stewart of the Daily Show puts this out there day-in and day-out.
Who cares about the people who are out there changing other people's lives and really making a difference in a truly meaningful one-on-one way. Risking their lives and truly sacrificing themselves is NOT the way to go if you are a Socialist like the Clintons.
NO, just be a politician and pretend you care.
Is Crawford wearing a
January 26, 2008 - 13:18 ET by charlietexasIs Crawford wearing a t-shirt or a dicky??? your call
He's wearing a t-shirt. He
January 26, 2008 - 17:44 ET by fitzfongHe's wearing a t-shirt. He is a dicky.
Not defending the Clintons,
January 26, 2008 - 20:19 ET by ckc1227Not defending the Clintons, but the guy is right. I haven't seen the so-called racism either. There's plenty to criticize the Clintons for without making up bogus racism claims.
Do you really believe that, ckc?
January 26, 2008 - 20:37 ET by RJHave you read the thread? Check out where this guy is coming from.
interjecting race, and covering up race
January 27, 2008 - 11:35 ET by lgeubankNews item:
Blacks would not support a white
alternative to Obama? Well, duhhh!
When has a majority-black populace ever
supported any candidate but a black one? The aggregation of
incompetents, criminals, illiterates and miscreants blacks have elected
-- from Mayor Dinkins to Ray Nagin -- seems to indicate that the main
criterion for a candidate, in order to win black voters, is to be
black.
Meanwhile, whites are supposed to be SO high-minded; they're not even supposed to notice what color a candidate is -- sort of like George Costanza on the Seinfeld show.
So Obama is going around, giving out with that high-minded, race-neutral, hypocritical rhetoric:
Yeah,
bullshot. He knows he has the black vote in the bag, and he just wants
to keep lull whites with that soothing, lofty rhetoric. In
other words, "Choose me, whitey, or you're a racist. And you blacks --
keep on being 'down with the struggle.' " It's all very high-minded and
right-thinking -- unless and until he wins; then it will be a mass riot
from shore to shore.
Whites are supposed to be absolutely
even-handed, antiseptic, large-minded, all the while blacks are
mumbling to themselves, "Gotta elect a brotha. Gotta elect a brotha.
Gotta elect a brotha..."