• Listen to this segment

GUEST: James Rucker, Executive Director of Color of Change

Following last Tuesday’s Democratic primaries, the Obama campaign for the presidency gained superdelegate votes and an influential union endorsement. All but eviscerating Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead, Obama inched within three votes, according to the Superdelegate Transparency Project, of tying Mrs. Clinton’s once significant lead, while securing the support of the American Federation of Government Employees. Following Clinton’s loss in North Carolina and narrow victory in Indiana, an increasing chorus of voices has called for the senator to gracefully bow out of the nomination race. Former Clinton backer George McGovern endorsed Senator Obama while the New York Times argued in an editorial that she had no realistic chance of winning. In fact, the mainstream media has flat out assumed Clinton’s bowing out – the only question that remains is how she plans to exit the race. But as of late last week, Senator Clinton said that she will remain in the race until a nominee is formally declared. More controversially, she argued that she is more electable in a race against John McCain. In an interview with USA Today, Clinton defined that claim by stating, “Senator Obama’s support among hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” Critics have called her comments race-baiting tactics of desperation. In fact, one of Clinton’s strongest supporters, Charles Rangel remarked it was “the dumbest thing she could ever have said.”

For more information, visit www.colorofchange.org.

Rough Transcript

Sonali Kolhatkar: Let’s talk about these comments that Hillary Clinton did make last week. Do you agree with what Charles Rangel is saying? And do you agree that her comments are in fact race-baiting?

James Rucker: Absolutely. And the issue is, you know, we are hoping everyone notices this. You have gone from a campaign that focused on issues, and that’s what campaigns should be about, to one where you’ve got a focus on superdelegates undermining the will of voters, and the kind of Trojan horse that kind of created an opening for that is this race-baiting. Basically it is saying, look, this country will not elect a black guy. I am someone who can identify with these white voters, a particular set of white voters, actually, and then they convince the superdelegates that it would be their responsibility to overturn the results that you find at the ballot box. And, race-baiting? No question. You know, each of these campaigns is very careful in what they do, what they say. You will notice that they have gone from talking about blue-collar workers to white workers. The Clinton surrogates have kind of racialized Obama, we saw that progress starting a few months ago, and it’s intensified to a point where it’s just very blatant. So, absolutely.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Now, there have been news reports saying that she has privately said to her aids that she regrets the comments, but you are saying that everything that is said is carefully calculated.

James Rucker: Absolutely. I mean, I think she regrets it because there has been a bit of backlash. We have had, you know, about 500 people call Howard Dean on Friday saying this is not how we would expect Democratic campaigns to behave. And I think you have Rangel, you have Bob Herbert in the Times on Sunday, you know, the response has been – wait a minute, what exactly are you doing, Hillary Clinton? And it’s transparent. So yeah, I think she regrets saying it, and I don’t know where she goes from this point forward. I think you are right in that she is kind of running out of options.

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, do you think that her strategy was, at least the intention behind the strategy, was to speak directly to those white voters that are supporting her over Obama, that fall into this particular demographic that is older whites that do not have a college degree. Do you think that was her intention?

James Rucker: I think that was part of her intention, but I think what she was really trying to do is appeal to superdelegates. Superdelegates who actually fall into, I mean, they are educated for sure, but there is a way in which, for instance, I would say the black vote is taken for granted or assumed. Right? No matter what happens, when it comes time for a general election, you are not going to find huge swaths of black folks voting for a Republican candidate. However, the white working class, uneducated whites, older whites, actually can be swing voters in a lot of cases. And I think her appeal is to the superdelegates saying – look, this is a demographic that, you know, can be at stake in the general. Are you really ready to risk, I mean this is, part of Obama’s candidacy is about not only change in terms of the future of the country, but the way in which these elections unfold. Most black folks I know were very surprised by Iowa. Folks who were very much, you know, in support of Obama, and others who weren’t. They were very surprised by the idea that a state like Iowa in America today would essentially, or at least the Democrats in that state, would prefer a black candidate over a very formidable white candidate. So I think part of Clinton’s message is that, you know, this change train may go down this track, but do you really want to stake your future on this kind of momentum? Right?

Sonali Kolhatkar: Right. Well, James, let’s talk about West Virginia then. You brought up Iowa. West Virginia is one that at least polls are showing Clinton enjoys a very healthy lead. Obama is not even attempting to discount that. And some are saying that she is going to use a broad victory in that state as a graceful exit. But what about West Virginia as an indication of where white voters might go in the election come November?

James Rucker: One is, I think, if the polls are right, you’ll have a good win for Clinton. I think that in terms of the general, there are several months where people will get a very clear sense of both Barack Obama and John McCain. And when you have your decision between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, it is one conversation. When it’s Obama and McCain, it’s a very different conversation. And you know, we will see. I think what we saw in Iowa shows, and you know, look. Racism in part of what we do at Color of Change every day is deal with the fact that we have serious race divisions and fallout from racism that’s current from today. But I would not be surprised if, come the general, a place like West Virginia, Democrats in a place like West Virginia, see that Obama holds a certain promise for them that McCain doesn’t. So, you know, we will certainly see, but I think it gets too much played up, the divisions and the distinction based on race lines in terms of voters and how they relate to Obama and Clinton. I think the general is a very different scenario.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Now, there was a time before Barack Obama gained the votes that he did, there were some folks even that I personally heard who said, you know, this country would never elect a black man. It’s just not going to happen. And there were some news reports last week that said that said those who are supportive of Hillary Clinton are so upset that she might not win the nomination that come November, they would rather vote for McCain than Obama. So what do you make of that? Do you think this country can indeed, despite what happened in Iowa, move beyond the issue of race to actually vote for a candidate that they think represents them on issues?

James Rucker: Yeah, and I actually think, you know, this has puzzled me really to no end. It’s something that I don’t have a read on, or at least where my brain goes is kind of a sad place. I don’t understand how those folks who, you know, Clinton and Barack are very close on most issues. Right? So if you look at who is going to kind of hold the banner of my issue, who is going to, you know, who promises at least, who talks about changing Washington for the better, whether it’s the war or anything else. So the candidates are not that indistinct. So when you have white Democrats saying “I will either vote for McCain or I will stay home instead of voting for Obama,” I try to make sense of that. Right? Because there is, the possibility for the answer is look, these are folks that are racist, or as the mainstream media would say “they are not comfortable voting for a black man,” which I think, you know, means racist, just to put it simply. But I also think, and this is from having talked to several women about this, trying to get a read on it. I think there was a way that Hillary walked into this candidacy just assuming she was going to win. And I think a lot of people assumed that as well, and if you look at it that way, Barack Obama becomes like the spoiler. Right? So there is perhaps a certain kind of resentment. If that’s the case, if it’s just that, you know – wow, there was the excitement that is understandable. I mean, I had this excitement. I mean I was pleased that there was a black Democrat running or Clinton, or a woman running. If it’s about that hope being bashed that right now, it was set up for a woman to run for the presidency. That I think can be overcome, because it’s a matter again of understanding McCain, understanding that Hillary Clinton is, her candidacy in the primary was amazing, and it said something, I think, about women in politics. Right? So I think those wounds can be healed, I think the faster folks get about the business of uniting the party, the better the chance that that will happen.

Sonali Kolhatkar: So, James, some have said that if the roles had been reversed, if it had been Barack Obama who had been trailing Hillary Clinton for these past few months, that there would have been a much bigger chorus of voices saying ok, enough, Obama, you are clearly not going to win, you need to step back, but because it was Hillary Clinton with her political background and her background of privilege and also being a white person, instead has gotten this treatment of, well, you have to admire her fighting spirit and she has not been encouraged early enough by party insiders to quit the race. What do you make of that analysis?

James Rucker: I really hold some water. It’s hard to know how things would have played out if you flipped things around. It is just really hard to know. What is true is, you know, she has been in trouble and she has had momentum turning against her. And folks are not, I mean, in fact, our position has been, look, the only way she wins is if superdelegates overturn the will of voters. Like, is that really on the table? And what you hear, basically, is a certain kind of quiet from folks like Pelosi, Reed. I mean, they go back and forth on it. Or Howard Dean. So there is this kind of, her option is, basically, having the elite, the insiders, go against the will of the voters. And that remains on the table. That would not have been on the table, I think, if it were the other way around. I think that’s true. But it’s hard to say. Right? I mean, on the one hand, you want the candidate to decide it’s time to bow out. And you also have, you know, as a family, the Clintons have very deep connections to so many of the folks in the room here. Right? So it’s hard to know the degree to which it is also about not completely upsetting the Clintons.

Sonali Kolhatkar: James, let’s talk about the way in which Barack Obama is approaching his strategy now, between now and the summer convention, and certainly the November election as well. He is shifting his focus to McCain very obviously, and his new strategy is just to start the race between him and McCain, whether or not the nominee has been decided. Is that presumptuous of him?

James Rucker: No, I think it’s absolutely smart. And the reason is McCain is already effectively campaigning against both Obama and Clinton, with a focus on Obama.

Sonali Kolhatkar: And do you think that McCain has essentially gotten a pass from the mainstream media because of this preoccupation with the Democratic race?

James Rucker: I think McCain gets a pass for a lot of reasons, actually. I think McCain also, you know, this idea that he is this maverick, independent, he is a war hero, he is a wounded vet who was held in solitary and, you know, prisoner of war, you know, it’s hard to kind of, for the media, to really go after him on some of the stuff that is actually there. So yeah, I think he has gotten a pass, and I think this is what Barack is actually answering to. I mean, he is realizing that he better start defining McCain soon, and those who are supporting him better do the same. Because, you know, he is only going to have a certain number of months to do so. So I think it’s absolutely smart. It also helps kind of solidify this idea that the primary is coming to an end. It’s not over yet, but it’s headed in a very clear direction, so why waste the energy focusing on the primary, when he can actually kind of usher it along by just saying it is basically done.

Sonali Kolhatkar: Now, a Barack Obama vs. John McCain match-up would highlight some very stark opposites in a single election: the largest age difference between two major candidates that has been seen, and also, of course, the largest race difference. What do you think this election is going to teach America about both race and age dynamics and also, there is the issue of class involved here. This is going to play out, if Barack Obama is indeed the nominee, as an extremely historic and important presidential election. The way in which it turns could say a lot about the state of the United States, and that’s assuming that we are not even discussing real issues here.

James Rucker: That’s exactly right. I think in terms of the possibility, like, the way a democracy is supposed to work. You know, throughout my lifetime, it’s always been this privileged path to the White House. It is unthinkable that someone who is not a part of a particular family with particular sort of connections, that you can even think about something like the presidency. Barack Obama, I mean he didn’t satisfy everyone, but when he gave that speech on race, you know, he was talking in a very different way than presidential candidates have talked, and it’s a black person doing the talking. I do think that, like you said, on class, race, age, on each of these, I think we get new filters to look at how politics can work, how engagement can work, who can be at the table. I mean, you also don’t want to put too much into this, because at the end of the day, these are campaigns that are going to play by certain rules in order to win. But, to the degree that, you know, Obama specifically, to the degree that he follows some of the things that he has followed thus far, I mean, look. There are times when everyone plays politics, and I get that, but to the degree that there is a certain authenticity. I think voter turnout, not just for this cycle but for future cycles, can increase, and that’s obviously really important. When people turn out in those kinds of numbers and they feel a sense of engagement and that they can hold government accountable actually, that can take place after an election. And also, you know, what folks like you do day in and day out, is try to make sure people understand what is happening. It is very different when you have an electorate that is engaged, fired up, and they believe that they have a stake in what is going on. They believe that they can influence or control what is going on. So I think, it will be very exciting to see how this all plays out between McCain and Obama, because I think those who really understand politics understand that it’s by no means going to be easy for Obama to win, because you are fighting, there are a lot of folks who are independents, who are conservatives, who, as they would say, are “very uncomfortable voting for a black man for president” for sure. But there are a lot of other folks who I think see that differently. And we will see all that play out. I think it will be very interesting.

Sonali Kolhatkar: And finally, James, you yourself said that there is, policy wise, not that much difference between Clinton and Obama and there are a lot of folks who are disaffected by the electoral process and who don’t feel that there really can be change, significant change at least, no matter who is in the White House, and that change takes place on the streets. What do you think of that and do you think that an Obama presidency versus a McCain presidency would make a huge difference in the margins, at least, of certain policy issues?

James Rucker: I think it could, but it is not going to revolutionize anything. I’m very clear on that. Because you still have, I mean one of the things that I think people sometimes lose sight of is a very big difference certainly between Clinton and Obama, and I think you will see the same with McCain and Obama, is who is supporting these candidates financially. And what you have are a gazillion low-dollar donors supporting Obama, that’s why he can go back to the well over and over again. What that says, though, is that you have very different people engaged, and, at the end of the day, if he becomes president, different people who are going to hold him accountable. So, the big difference that I think may happen is the way in which lobbyists fundamentally ruin, actually, the game of politics. I think that may change. We won’t see the effect of that in the first year, first two years, probably. Right? That will take a little bit of time. So, I think the street component is always there, but I actually believe that if Obama is president, if he does what he says he is going to do, people will see politics, those who have believed that the lack of process [inaudible] no way can work will see, oh, actually, let me rethink that. I may come to the same conclusion, but let me at least rethink that.

Special Thanks to Claudia Greyeyes for transcribing this interview