In this morning's New York Times analysis of the Clinton campaign (by Peter Baker and Jim Rutenberg), an astonishing new fact jumped out at me. Read this please:

"At one point [in planning strategy] Mr. [Mark] Penn [Chief Strategist] argued that Mrs. Clinton should find subtle ways to exploit what he called Mr. Obama's 'lack of American roots,' referring to his Kenyan father and his childhood years in Indonesia and even the offshore state of Hawaii, the campaign officials said. Mr. Penn recomended that Mrs. Clinton own the word 'American'- she should talk about the 'American century' and her 'American Strategic Energy Fund,' and so forth. She should add flag symbols to her logo, he suggested."

Senator Clinton followed some of the advice and, to her credit, rejected some of it. Astounding to me was that she listened to it at all, and that it came from a modern consultant and not a pre-1970's segregationist.

Interestingly, American symbolism is normally not linked with exploiting a candidates "lack of American roots." To adorn one's logo with an American flag normally has no secondary meaning. It's purpose is merely to express one's own patriotism. So I wasn't shocked by the suggestions themselves, but by their motive to attack Obama on the basis of racial characteristics, and the apparent lack of complete revulsion to the notion by Clinton's inner circle, as reported in the Times piece.

"Code language" (as opposed to unambiguous offensive slurs) is designed and used to maintain ambiguity, while nevertheless carrying a subtle, racial connotation. In the old days "states rights" (famously used by Reagan long after the banning of racial segregation in the south) was a phrase known to elicit a racial reaction among southerners who wanted issues of race to be decided "by the states," in other words, to allow them to maintain segregation, voting limitations, and other Jim Crow policies.

Looking back on the Clinton campaign, I now wonder, based on the revelations about Mr. Penn's advice, if the campaign was actually doing this stuff on purpose. I had always been critical of the awkwardness of the campaign's language but believed it was more negligent than sinister.

But terms like "hardworking Americans" (meaning "hardworking white Americans") and the comparisons to "Jesse Jackson," and Senator McCain's new repetition of the phrase "young man" (creepily close to "boy," the word used against adult black males) are giving me pause. Are we really still living in so cynical a world that such tactics would be employed intentionally?

Congressman Clyburn, according to the same article, has now admitted that he became disillusioned when his good friend Bill Clinton angrily called him after South Carolina and used obvious racial "code language" to disparage Obama's success. Was Bill doing the same thing publicly when he absurdly accused Obama of "using the race card against me." ?

Ironically, this information comes out the day that the Clinton campaign officially folded. How long have these reporters known about it? If we learn of this type of behavior after the fact, how can we hold politicians accountable for it?

Well, next time McCain use the term "very young man" I will be suspicious to know if it is not racial code. Will the press dig for the origins of these strategies?

You know what's really sad, John?

These tactics wouldn't be used if they didn't work. Unless we can learn to ignore this crap, we'll keep getting more of it. If the American public proves to the marketing researchers that this sort of campaigning is no longer effective, then they will seek different tactics. Only then.

Perhaps you were both too busy watching the Obama/Clinton slugfest to notice this slogan John McCain rolled out at the end of March: <link>

“The American President Americans Have Been Waiting For.”

Not very subtle is it?

Obama/Clinton 08!

Pwoxby,

Good one. That's more obvious than the others! And now I think it was deliberate.

Imagine if code language were used about McCain's age in his slogan. "Obama: Leadership for this Century."

I believe the McCain's use of "young man" is not a veiled reference to the disparaging "boy," but rather an effort to establish Obama as quite inexperienced. Coded language, definitely, but not racist. McCain will leave that to the 527s.

I did note McCain's commercial about the American leader for America. This is definitely coded language questioning Barack (HUSSEIN!!!) Obama's red, white and blue bona fides. This will start to backfire on McCain.

If you're interested, you might want to look here, here, or here.

The United States is facing issues too dire to pollute our political discourse with obfuscation and blatant manipulation. The political reality is - all candidates are doing it, and must, if they're to survive on the political landscape. Yet when they attempt to discuss it (eg. Hillary and media sexism), they make themselves vulnerable to it.

Slate has enough exposure that they could initiate a public discussion on the subject. Be nice if we could get a helping hand from the fourth estate, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately, that seems unlikely to me.

Good points.

If it's a pattern, it's probably deliberate. Especially in an environment where messages are crafted with great care and expense.

What about sign language? At a North Carolina rally shortly after losing Pennsylvania Obama was speaking and mentioned "Hillary Clinton" as he did so he quickly stroked his cheek with his middle finger to which the crowd immediately reacted with a hoot and shouts which he slyly acknowledged with a smile and nods of his head. That slur was directed to Hillary but the failure to wear the flag pin to recognize the National Anthem was the equivalent of giving all Americans the finger. As for MSNBC and Olberman and the rest it shows a dereliction of "News Reporting" sufficient to officially label them "OBAMA SOCK PUPPETS".

Dear FieldingBandolier;

Your links to "framing" discussions emanating from the advertising world, and now used by George Lakoff and Frank Luntz in politics, are instructive. It was the advertisers who perfected the game of "code words."

My concern is not the "framing" of words for maximum effect (although that too gets scary when it works at its best) but in the socially sinister ways code words are used in politics and everyday conversation.

• The "career woman" during times when that had a more widespread negative connotation would take on the meaniing of "bad mother."
• The "young man who didn't join the service" takes on the meaning of "unpatriotic."
• The word "elitist" when applied to a black man with a Harvard education results in a response of "uppity" in the minds of some older white southerners.
• "He won't be able to grasp" the complicated workings of the government, becomes to some a placemarker for "the job is too big for a black man."

The intention of the speaker is always in question. It is only wrong when there is evidence or reason to believe that the code language is employed to say something beneath decency that would not be uttered straight out.

The example cited by pwoxby of McCain's new slogan: The American President That Americans Have been Waiting For, seems to be more than framing. It sounds like an attempt to exploit prejudices and to portray Obama as black, foreign, and unpatriotic. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when his consultants came up with that one.

Does any one read these posts. Someone should call McCain on that one.

what Lakoff is describing. The architects are capitalizing on connotations to convey not just manifest concepts, but latent ones as well. "The American President that Americans have been Waiting For" deliberately primes not just the concept of patriotic American (and soldiers/veterans), but also an underlying tribal inclusionary/exclusionary mindset that capitalizes on people's tendency to identify with those who look like them, and not so much with those who don't (and certainly not those with Obama's middle name and that pesky "closet muslim" meme they set loose awhile back - actually their primary target, I'm sure).

The technique, as applied to politics, was actually perfected by conservative groups - the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation etc. (Liberals are playing catch-up). So when AEI adjunct Anne Applebaum launches a rather tardy (and sexist - but don't get me started) diatribe against Hillary on the XX factor blog today, after just posting an article featured at the American Enterprise Institute on Friday (in which she highlights the similarities between Obama and McCain), I become suspicious about both her tactics and motive.

It suits the goals of conservatives to maintain alienation within the Democratic party - it certainly suits neither Democrats nor (alleged) feminists. More pointedly, it undermines the palatability of a joint ticket, which polls have shown advantageous. Similar suspicions about Saletan's controversial series on IQ and ethnicity [which started with his attendance at an AEI conference, actually, and interactions with conservative commentator/blogger/consultant Steve Sailer]. It's a very convenient framework to be employed in debate on immigration and foreign aid.

If you're interested in such things, you might enjoy this site.

I'm very unhappy about the sorry state of political discourse these days, and particularly unhappy about the role news media plays in exacerbating the problem. The problems we face are too dire. So it is nice to see someone out there, trying to address the problem (though something about teacups and the Titanic comes to mind).

Wouldn't it be grand if Slate tried something along those lines?

I'm not going to hold my breath.

It's also these type of viral rumors that tend to set up and keep these rumors going as well. Michelle Obama somehow getting caught on tape saying "whitey". It's ridiculous.

<link>

First of all, he was scratching his face throughout the speech, using different fingers at different times. Why not point out the shout out to Dr. Evil when he puts his pinkie to the side of his mouth?

Anyway, at about 1:20, the crowd is worked up and shouting when he does it and continues through that. They were reacting to his criticism of Clinton and how she is playing the game. The scratch in the middle of this does not change the tone. What you are seeing is what the pundits told you to see. Watch it again. Without a shouting head screaming there it is.

And if you don't believe me, listen, don't watch. Open your eyes when the crowd reacts to something. You'll then see.

And the biggest reaction is not to the "finger" but to the "dirt off my shoulders" move about a minute later. And he wasn't talking about Clinton then but the way the pundits have been trying hard to find something any thing to get him on.

Which begs the question, who's sock puppet have you been getting your info from?

Yes, language plays an important role. But also the misinterpretation of it.

Yes, Obama made the "bitter" comment. A poor choice of words that have been turned to mush by the media especially the pundits looking for a reason to make it important. Did anyone really think that talk was about race and not about people who are so tired of being lied to they only had push button issues to "cling" to becuase that is all they can depend on: their church, their individual rights not defined as speech but as a right to bear arms, their jobs foreigners have been trying to take away from. Cling to me meant they were holding onto the the things that kept them from being swept away in the current chaos, not out of some ignorant selfishness. And if the rest of the talk ever got any play, he wasn't just talking about whites being bitter, but how inner-city minorities who are bitter and clinging onto the same things for the same reasons. He was talking about understanding them the way we have tried to understand other classes and creeds and races.

So bitter and cling become code language. As does 57 states (he meant contest everybody knows that) and the real biggie, preconditions.

NightSwimmer:

These tactics wouldn't be used if they didn't work. Unless we can learn to ignore this crap, we'll keep getting more of it. If the American public proves to the marketing researchers that this sort of campaigning is no longer effective, then they will seek different tactics. Only then.

Ah, but they didn't work, and they won't work in the general either. Obama's a smart guy, and thanks to Clinton's campaign, he knows how to weather this kind of attack and give a rousing speech doing it.

Obama/Clinton '08

and "Code Words" is that it WORKS for both sides!

I'm not an Obama supporter, but I do like one of his policy proposals. I toss it up there for discussion, and I get a bunch of people on both the GOP and Dem sides in a cliched whizzing match. Or, if I'm lucky, I get a response one of the most prolific posters on this board and a supposed "blogger" who can't make a point or support an argument without calling the other person "flatulent" or an "idiot".

If anyone took half the time to rub a couple of brain cells together, they would know that these "Barack Hussein Obama" or "McBush" arguments are worthless.

I find the style of English used in American political arguments grating and oversimplistic. But, before we get on our high horse, it's time to look in the mirror.

sonfan1969:

and "Code Words" is that it WORKS for both sides!

They used to work. The thing about "winning strategies" is that, given time, they always present their Achilles Heel. Obama's counter-strategy is a "negative campaign killer". He shines the light directly on negative campaigning and invites us to envision a better way for politics. Cynicism is under direct attack by hope.