Following is a copy of an email response I received from Josh Marshall on January 12 when I expressed concern about the race baiting by Obama "supporters" and its possible undermining of the campaign's message, along with my original message. (I was an Obama supporter at the time). The only thing left out is, for my own protection, my name and email address. In it, Josh confirms that this race-baiting was part of an organized tactic of the campaign, not just free-lancing "supporters." At the time, he was also concerned that it might have detrimental affects -- but, after its success in the South Carolina primary, he jumped on the bandwagon and started intentionally pushing the meme. On his website he, like you, used Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment as his excuse -- without revealing that he was knowingly aiding the campaign's strategy. His response appears first, my original email to him under his response. As you can see, I was quite naive.

Subject: Re: "Racist" statements and "the Bradley effect"

There's another factor operating in the background.  It's not just Obama's supporters.  The campaign itself was actively engaging this debate this week.  Toward the end, I think they realized that whatever the merits of their claims against the Clinton campaign, this didn't necessarily help them.  And I think they're trying to dial back the whole conversation.  

On 1/12/08 10:10 AM, ""  wrote:

Josh:

Just an observation as a marketing professional -- the journalists and supporters who are nitpicking every Obama competitor's statements for racist content and pushing the "Bradley effect" storyline are doing Obama a great disservice. By inviting their readers and potential voters to view and vet every political criticism of, and every political criticizer of, Obama and his campaign statements and appeals through the prism of racism, they are directly contradicting and weakening his message of "change" and his assertion that he is the candidate who can get us beyond, or help us rise above, our acrimonious racial history.

Some Obama supporters, white as well as black, appear to believe this can help create solidarity with African American voters and, in some cases, diminish the popularity of the Clintons within the African American community. But I don't understand why they think this approach -- which undermines their candidate's most powerful message -- is necessary or likely to be effective.  To win African American voters from Clinton to Obama, it's not necessary to convince them that the Clinton's are racist. (Which, no matter how minutely and tendentiously you parse their statements, would be a difficult job within a community that knows them and genuinely likes them.) But it necessary to convince African Americans that Obama, if he wins, will be at least as good, if not much, much better, on the issues that most affect their lives. That "change" and "reaching across the aisle" doesn't mean accomodating white constituencies at their expense. They also have to convince them that Obama CAN win  -- a message that is undermined by the racism-in-every- statement/even-our-friends-are-racist/"Bradley affect" storylines. Those storylines don't promote hope or build on the African American community's natural desire to see, and help, one of their own succeed -- they promote hopelessness, paranoia and cynicism.

The campaign is also contradicting Obama message of "change" and moving beyond "the politics of the past" by running around seeking the endorsement of too many politicians from the past. It may be hard to tell John Kerry that this isn't the right time for his endorsement (or the right place -- I don't remember Kerry being all that popular in South Carolina), but the Obama campaign should have done so. If you are running as the insurgent candidate, getting endorsed by the establishment is only useful AFTER the insurgency has been successful, as a symbol OF its new power.