Bob Johnson's A Fool

Bob Johnson, the founder of BET (which doesn't actually reflect well on him or do much to "lift up" Black America, considering that their almost entire output it Hot Ghetto Mess and 106th and Park), said a really stupid thing yesterday, obliquely citing Barack Obama's drug use as a teenager, and then lying about it.

"To me, as an African American, I am frankly insulted the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues — when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood; I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book — when they have been involved," Johnson said.

Obama wrote about his teenage drug use — marijuana, alcohol and sometimes cocaine — in his memoir, "Dreams from My Father."

Johnson later said his comments referred to Obama's work as a community organizer in Chicago "and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect," he said in a statement released by Clinton's campaign.

Actually, Bob Johnson is irresponsible and incorrect. A community organizer is not only a noble profession, but Saul Alinsky, the "godfather" of community organizing, was one of Hillary Clinton's heroes. His comments make no sense if he was referring to community organizing.

The real problem here is that the Clinton campaign is allowing Bob Johnson to speak for them at all. Johnson has a horrible economic past, having gleefully sat on Bush's "privatize Social Security" board, having called the estate tax "racist" and having lobbied against tax fairness for hedge fund managers. No respectable Democrat would ever share the stage with him. I agree with Matt Stoller that this offers a real opportunity for Obama:

Obama should use this moment to go after big media and outclass Clinton with substantive and sharp distinctions on policy that show him as a forward-looking and deep candidate. He is already out with the policy that diversity of media ownership is critical to a healthy media system, now is a good moment to make that explicit and go after the media monopolies.

Better that than continue this identity fight, which, because of the stereotypes being thrown around, he will probably lose. He's doing much better in the recently released Washington Post poll, that shows the race nationally at 42-37-11. Obama has already garnered increased support from African-Americans because of the Clinton campaign's attacks combined with his Iowa victory, leading to Clinton practically pulling out of South Carolina. It's time to get back the white liberals. Moving off of racial identity and on to some substantive and noticeable fight would be a way to do that.

Media ownership is one of Stoller's pet causes, but in this case he's absolutely right. Johnson is a creature of a diseased media oligarchy, and the causes he's supported feed right out of that. He's an example of the narrowness of out discourse. Rather than harp on the racial nonsense and the smearing, Obama could offer a direct critique of the kind of economic inequality someone like Johnson wants to maintain. Otherwise, I do fear that Obama is being lured into a trap.

And so it's worth wondering if there's not a coordinated strategy among the Clintons to force a conversation over race. Not a conversation that will be harmful to Obama -- the Clintons have, after all, had to spend a fair amount of time apologizing, and clarifying -- but a conversation that will be harmful to his message. If Obama has to spend a lot of time talking about race, it's hard for him to be the post-racial candidate. If he has to spend a lot of time on divisive topics, it's hard for him to make an appeal for unity. And if he gets thrown off message at this point in the campaign, it will be exceedingly hard for him to blunt Clinton's momentum. And, whether it's a coordinated strategy on the part of the Clintons or not, it's definitely what's happening.

And when you add in the voter suppression effort that Clinton surrogates are engaged in, trying to make it harder for union members to vote, you have to question the win-at-all-costs strategy here. I don't think Obama's campaign has been squeaky clean, but I've yet to see voter suppression tactics. Meanwhile John Edwards seems completely apart from this debate, and he's doing pretty darn well in Nevada considering the media blackout. If Obama would short-circuit the debate and talk about the ECONOMIC reasons to reject Bob Johnson's comments, he would reap a bounty. Instead, it's identity politics, his coalition isn't big enough, and Clinton is likely to benefit.