News-Record.com

Into the weeds of presidential back-and-forth we go...

So, a news release with this headline came to us scruffy media types from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign today: "Charlotte City Council Mayor Pro Tem Susan Burgess to Hold Conference Call to Challenge Sen. Obama to Stop Trying to Disenfranchise North Carolina Voters."

What the campaign was trying to get at was that North Carolina, for the first time in a very long time, had the opportunity to have a meaningful vote in a presidential contest. But there have been those allied with Sen. Barack Obama that have called for Sen. Clinton to step out of the Democratic primary.

Before going further, it is worth noting that Obama himself has said "My attitude is that Sen. Clinton can run as long as she wants" and it is rather Obama supporters such as Sens. Dodd and Leahy who have suggested she should stand down.

At any rate, Burgess and Clinton campaign spokesman Isaac Baker were on the phone today and were asked a couple questions about the use of the word "disenfranchise," which is defined: "to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote."

It's a word that might have some particular resonance in this state, given the fact we're still subject to the federal voting rights act to ensure the state doesn't disenfranchise African American voters.

Burgess was asked whether she thought calls for Clinton to step out of the race were disenfranchisement: "Not really. I think disenfranchisement means depriving of voting right. And what I want to make sure is that we're not deprived of voting because I want the voices of people of North Carolina heard in this very, very important presidential race."

Baker didn't back down from the word though: "I think this stems from several instances, certainly the way the Obama campaign has handled the votes in Florida and Michigan have raised a lot of concerns. There have been proposals put on the table by multiple parties, not just the Clinton campaign, to count votes in Florida and Michigan, to allow for re-votes so that people following the rules of the DNC would be allowed to turn out and vote and participate in this primary. And they have at every turn obstructed and delayed those efforts and essentially run out the clock on those efforts so as not to allow the voters of Florida and Michigan to vote....Now as we face 10 new contests to come...we're asking the Obama campaign to urge its supporters and its surrogates not to try and short circuit this process. We know that in trying to push Sen. Clinton out of the race what they would essentially be doing is saying to North Carolina voters, to Indiana voters and others coming up, you know, you may have a preference in this election but we don't want you to get to voice it because we want this to be over...That's the basis of our comments in this regard."

The way that Florida and Michigan have been dealt with will be a strong concern in the General Election, where it could be used as talking point by the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain.

Well, Baker was asked, wouldn't it be that Clinton would be the one who was disenfranchising voters?

"What we're trying to say is that no one in this election should try to bring a premature end to this process by trying to bully or force out Sen. Clinton ... There's very much a campaign left to be run and our concern is that anyone would try to bully Sen. Clinton out of this race before the voters have a chance to vote for her, and that's our position here."

Bully? Really?

Okay, another reporter read the headline from the press release and asked how exactly it was Obama, and not some of his supporters, who are trying to disenfranchise (or whatever) North Carolina voters.

"We think a clear message was sent to his surrogates ... who have been pressuring Sen. Clinton to drop out of the race. We believe that was met with a great deal of resistance in the states that are coming up to vote, and that Sen. Obama was forced to backtrack ..."

I asked for the Obama campaign to weigh in, and spokesman Dan Leistikow e-mailed the following:

"It's laughable to suggest Senator Obama is disenfranchising voters when he's brought more new people into the political process than any candidate in recent memory and our campaign is working around the clock to register North Carolinians for this historic primary. And as the Clinton campaign well knows, Senator Obama said this week that Senator Clinton should be able to run as long as she wants. North Carolina voters deserve better than these desperate, Washington-style political attacks."

At the end of that exchange, I was still wondering whether the word "disenfranchise" might be calibrated to particularly speak to African Americans and other minorities, who have within the past 60 years been able to use the word in its full and true meaning. I got a mix of answers.

"I think it's very disingenuous of the Clinton campaign to use that word," said Melvin "Skip" Alston, who counts himself as an Obama supporter. Alston, a Guilford County commisioner (and former head for the state NAACP) who is African American and frequently speaks on the various equations of race in politics, said the use of the word would have been "carefully calculated" to speak to minority voters.

"They're using that term ... as a way to try to cause confusion and division within the African American community," he said. He added that it was unfair to pin the words of a surrogate or supporter on the candidate himself.

On the con side was Michael Cobb, an assistant professor of political science who studies how race is used to frame political debate.

"I don't think it would be deliberate in terms of subtle racial context," he said. "Everyone viewed South Carolina as a disaster, so why would they repeat the behavior."

What happened in South Carolina was kind of a ham-handed use of racial politics by Clinton's surrogate-in-chief, former-president Bill Clinton.

Others I talked to said that the greater sin that may have been committed here is one of linguistic imprecision. Sen. Clinton has total control over whether she stays in the race. Obama can't force her out or take her off the ballot. So if anyone is going to do any disenfranchising, it's going to be Clinton herself, right?

Also pointed out: Women had to struggle for the right to vote in the early 20th century.

Where does this get us at the end of the day? Absolutely nowhere. But you can expect much more of what has been a national back-and-forth to filter down to the local level over the next month and change.