^{by Tom Head, About.com Guide to Civil Liberties}

Photo: J.D. Pooley / Getty Images.

In "Hillary Clinton vs. The Black Candidate," I wrote about what I perceived to be the Clinton campaign's attempts to inject race into the presidential election. Is she still at it? Many bloggers say yes. I'm not sure I agree--the race identity strategy seems to have been an experiment that failed, judging by the 11 consecutive losses she suffered after South Carolina--but the evidence is worth a look.

Point 1: Skin Shading

The June 27th, 1994 issue of Time magazine featured a color-saturated, artificially darkened image of O.J. Simpson's mug shot. The photographer would later say that he had intended to make the image "more artful, more compelling," but this had the not inconsequential effect of making Simpson's substantially darker than it actually was. Color bias remains a serious problem--in the United States and internationally--so the prospect of making a black man's skin darker should be weighed carefully, particularly when one is attempting to portray him in a negative light.

In a recent television ad criticizing Obama, the Clinton campaign artificially darkened his skin. While the ad in general had a darkened color hue, the similarities with the Time magazine cover incident are notable.

Did the Clinton campaign intend to use color bias against Obama? It's hard to say. Color hue manipulation can be done by a small staff, quietly, with no explicit indication that exploitation of color bias is the intended goal. A Clinton spokesman dismissed the shading accusation as "bogus," stating that "ads look different" depending on the media through which they are viewed. But a side-by-side comparison clearly shows that the frame was artificially darkened.

Point 2: The Farrakhan Factor

In the most recent debate between Clinton and Obama, the moderator brought up, and Clinton used, the issue of Louis Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama. Farrakhan is a divisive figure to say the least--leader of the Nation of Islam (which teaches that blacks are a superior race and that humanity was created by black scientists), antisemite, and organizer of the impressive and monumental Million Man March of 1995.

Russert grilled Obama on the endorsement, at which point Obama reminded Russert that he had "consistently denounced" Farrakhan's antisemitic remarks. Clinton responded:

CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.

And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.

RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?

CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.

OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.

(The transcript places "(APPLAUSE)" after the Clinton remark, but at the actual debate the applause began prior to her remark and continued through it.)

There are several dynamics at work here:

1. Clinton has the opportunity to state her opposition to antisemitism, and actively compete with Obama for Jewish support.
2. Clinton has the opportunity to subtly remind viewers, if she so chooses, that Obama is black.
3. Some viewers will also think of email campaigns against Obama, which center on false claims that he is secretly a Muslim and/or a black nationalist.

Obama decisively won the exchange with his "I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting" remark--the audience cheered, and Clinton backed away from her criticism--but how many of the above motives, if any, were relevant to the exchange?

Point 3: The Somali Photos

Last October, an article in The Guardian described Matt Drudge as "one of Hillary Clinton's best-kept secrets"--and that "the Clinton campaign had grown adept at using the Drudge Report to leak news that could steal the thunder from rivals."

It is customary for diplomats to wear clothing indigenous to the region they are visiting, and Obama was photographed doing so while visiting rural Kenya, his father's country, in traditional Somali garb. According to the Drudge Report, the Clinton campaign had leaked this photograph to them for dissemination.

The Clinton campaign has denied leaking the photograph, but added that "[i]f Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed." It is not clear why the Obama campaign should be ashamed for acknowledging racism and xenophobia, which obviously do exist and obviously can be factors in elections. Nor is the Clinton campaign's denial entirely plausible, given its previous history of leaking material to Drudge.

Point 4: PajamaGate

Law blogger Ann Althouse suggests that a recent Clinton advertisement, which featured an African-American child whose pajamas (reading "GOOD NIGHT") were arranged for several seconds in such a way as to present the letters N-I-G prominently on the screen, may have represented an attempt to use subliminal advertising against Obama. I find this idea a little harder to swallow than the others, but it's making rounds on the blogosphere, so it's worth noting.

Does Any of This Matter?

The key question for me is not "Did Hillary Clinton intend to do any of these things?," but rather "Did they benefit her campaign?" The answer is, frankly, not at all clear. She broke Obama's momentum a little bit with her narrow primary victories in Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas, but has long been on track to do that anyway. And the cost-benefit ratio of using these strategies in a national Democratic primary is not particularly compelling--they might appeal to white racists, sure, but they're just as likely to turn off people of color and antiracist whites. Not to mention the fact that all of these strategies (with the exception of the Farrakhan issue in the debates) would require the coordination of multiple people--any one of whom could leak the strategy and immediately doom the Clinton campaign by doing so.

So while I wouldn't put much past the Clinton campaign after what happened in South Carolina, I don't think the skin shading or pajama word search represent intentional attempts to use racism to influence the campaign. Nor do I think that drawing out the Farrakhan issue was anything more than an attempt to appeal to Jewish voters concerned about antisemitism--though the fact that Russert pressed the issue as hard as he did in the first place is more troubling, since Obama had done nothing to court Farrakhan's support. The Somali photo leak theory, on the other hand, sounds very credible--much more credible than the idea that Drudge would lie about a source to harm a candidate with whom he has had such a mutually beneficial working relationship over the past six months.

See also:

• Hillary Clinton vs. The Black Candidate
• Solidarity and Treason