Clinton Plays The Race Card
Sad, really.
There's always been a racial dynamic underlying Clinton's claims of electability: The argument that working class white swing voters might not -- for whatever reason -- vote for Obama.
Her campaign has been stating it with striking bluntness in the last couple of days, though. Yesterday it was Geoff Garin, and today Clinton in an interview with USA Today:
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won't feign shock. But it's a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate's mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voter.
And it's also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there's a substantial number of black voters.
She is also playing the women-card.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/clinton_women_are_going_to_be.php
Imagine if O was saying vote for me because I'm black and a man. Like she is saying vote for me because I'm White and woman.
May 8, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
IT WAS A "RACE CAR" YOU NUNCE
The story read: she "played" in a "race car" while visiting Indy. You latte guzzling liberal softboys should read the whole story instead of just the "smippets"
Now go get me a double grande wanker.
Sincerely
Larry Johnson
Obama/iPod '08
May 8, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard-working Americans = white Americans. Right. The rest of us sit on our porches eating watermelon and plucking banjos. Lady, you cannot win without African Americans. You cannot win without Hispanics and Latinos.
This kind of comment is less a description than an agitator, it's meant to give white voters the impression that they would be "disenfranchised" by an Obama win. It's a not so subtle effort to evoke racial resentment over Obama's success. That's what the "elitist" charge has always been about, appealing to the sentiment that "this black guy thinks he's better than you."
But the truth is, Clinton won't win the white vote either. According to CNN's 1996 exit poll, Bill Clinton lost the white vote (Dole 46%, Clinton 43%, Perot 9%). He lost the white male vote by an even larger margin (Dole 49%, Clinton 38%, Perot 11%). And he lost gun owners badly (Dole 51%, Clinton 38%, Perot 10%). However, Clinton won the popular vote overall.
May 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not thrilled with her statement, but I think it can easily be explained as a verbal gaffe that doesn't have the meaning many are attributing to it. She started off talking about "working class voters" using the alternate phraseology "hard-working Americans", and then realized that she needed to be more specific since black working class voters were going to Obama.
That this demographical divide is being mentioned (and exaggerated) is hardly new, and it's not ideal, but neither is she actually saying that blacks are not hard working.
We really don't need to be fanning these flames.
May 8, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe this was an accident. She took her time answering the question, choosing her words along the way.
Hillary is anything but dumb. This is appalling. I foolishly hoped she'd find a graceful way to exit.
The supers need to end this today! This is dangerous for the Party.
You can listen for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0
May 8, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's definitely not pretty, but I'm just unwilling to accept that she meant in any way to imply that blacks cannot also be hard-working Americans. I suppose a cynical person (which I occasionally am) would say that she's counting on people like me being unwilling to accept that.
May 8, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I the only one who suspects that she might be doing this as a way to "gracefully" leave the election, reputational hara kiri, if you will?
May 8, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is Hillary going to cut the house, car, and boat, in half with a chainsaw, and then burn everything to the ground, so that Obama has nothing left to win but a smouldering pile of ashes?
May 8, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
In this nomination contest vs. Obama, Hillary doesn't seem to have a choice if she can't slice into the black vote no matter how hard she tried. Remember, this is a senator who has an NAACP RATING of 96% and yet, she gets below 10% support from them.
She can only balance this unbalanced situation by winning decisively in states where black vote is not a significant factor. And that means winning the white vote big.
She's kind of late in recognizing where she can win and where she can't.
Now, who has been playing the race card? The evidence is whoever has been winning a particular race in a BIG WAY.
May 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Bradley had a track record in Civil Rights that was much better than VP Al Gore.
Bradley's portion of the Black vote was miniscule whenhe completed against Gore in the Democratic Primaries.
Gore seemed the more viable candidate to the bulk of Black voters. Skin color obviously was not an issue. Can a similar sense among Black voters explain Obama's support?
Al Sharpton got a miniscule vote in NYC during his Presidential race (12% comes to mind). Are 90% votes from African-Americans good when given to a white candidate, but bad(and possibly racist) when given to a Black candidate?
May 9, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
After her colleagues get off the floor from shock, she'll be ignored not only by Obama but by every single Senator and Congressional leader who has any decency. That such words would come from her mouth is astonishing. Imagine her as President, folks. Oy...
May 8, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Three things:
(1) Her "pattern" claim is wrong on the facts. From the piece in USA Today:
(2) The argument that the preference of some Democratic primary voters for a white Democrat projects the preference of those same voters for a white Republican in the general is self-serving, specious, and absurd. The voting dynamic in a primary election is completely different from the voting dynamic in the general.
(3) There was no Democratic candidate more closely associated with the concerns of "the white working class" than John Edwards. The overwhelming preference for Obama, among Edwards's former staff, supporters, and donors, speaks loudly for itself.
Just today, Obama picked up the endorsement of David Bonior, who was Edwards's campaign manager.
May 8, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
ARGH!
WENCH HILLARY FIGHTS LIKE A PIRATE!
WITH A PATCH OVER ONE EYE!
VISION! VISION!
YET THE LANDLUBBERS GIVE HER DERISION!
SHE'S A FIGHTER! NOT A PILOT! LIGHT! BRIGHT!
THE STAR OF THE NIGHT!
ACQUIRE! MERGE! MARAUD! DILUTE! DILUTE!
ARGH!
May 8, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was enough to make Ken Rudin and Ron Elving of NPR's weekly political podcast "It's All Politics" cringe. It's still making me cringe.
http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=5495231
May 9, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
So....Obama gets SLAMMED by his bitter comments, but Clinton saying she can only get white americans?
And non-whites aren't hard working?
Double-standard in the media.
May 9, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gene Robinson of the Washington Post had an interesting column today about the Hillary race problem:
"From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- ...Clinton's sin isn't racism, it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama.
"It's still early," Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050802807.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Meanwhile the Hillary Deathwatch on Slate.com has lowered her chances to 2.3% and have matched their graphic with a barely visible Hillary on her sinking ship:
"...Clinton has a new strategy: Say Obama can't win white voters. This, just as three extremely white states—West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon—prepare to vote. Obama's strategy: Ignore Clinton and focus on McCain. Watch this awkward dynamic escalate as long as Clinton stays in the race: Clinton ratchets up the rhetoric, while Obama pretends she doesn't exist. If an attack ad airs in Montana, but no one responds, does it make a sound?"
http://www.slate.com/id/2190986/
I'd like to ignore her to, but I can't ignore racism.
May 9, 2008 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm tired of hearing about Clinton. Let's leave Chelsea alone!
May 9, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am in West Virginia and this comment was directed to the voters in this state. I am her demographic, white, female, Catholic, family with middle income. I am totally offended by the remark. With each word in the sentence she went further and further down the rabbit hole. Remember, she is the candidate with most "experience". I committed to be a Barack Obama delegate to the state convention way back on 12 April, so I am just offended not swayed. My husband just dropped his plan to still vote for Edwards, and wants to go with me Saturday for early voting so we can help with the local Obama HQ plans on the 13th. The nominee's acceptance speech with be on the 45th anniversary of Rev. Martin L. King's "I Have a Dream" speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial. I prefer to identifiy myself as an American, daughter of a Navy veteran, granddaughter of barbers and blacksmiths. I just drop down a long WV country lane to pick up my oldest daughter's pickup truck from the alignment shop. It as paved with "No Zoning" and "Obama" yard signs.
May 9, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please can we get over this?!? I've come over from the dark side and am now ready to support Obama but these claims of racism/racist appeals are becoming tiresome. Every day countless reporters, commentators and pundits point out that Obama has not connected with less-educated, white blue collar voters. There seems to be some basis for this assertion. (Though whether it will carry over to the general election remains to be seen; I certainly hope not.) Yet when Hillary Clinton, trying to put her flagging campaign in the best possible light, points out this very same fact - one that, like it or not, will be very significant in the general election -she is roundly denounced as a racist, playing the race card, etc. It's becoming tiresome.
May 9, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So tiresome, in fact, that I said tiresome twice. I'll repeat a third time for emphasis, and to prove I wasn't mistaken the first time. Tiresome.
May 9, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Open your eyes. Im glad you have come over, but as said before, some of us cant put fingers in our ears, and close our eyes and not see what she is doing! She needs to be saying things to unite, not divide! And as said before, just because pundits say it, doesn't mean there isnt any nuance in those numbers! Go back to before Rev Wright, Obama had more of those numbers than she did, Imagine if her rhetoric was unite rather than exploit the fact that Rev Wright would have an effect. Slower for those who want to ignore that, She has more to do with he party comming together inlight of those comments rather playing them as if its going to help in the General. That is what people are saying, what your saying! Come on Hillary change your rhetorich cant we get passed that! Dont hate the messengers on this!
May 9, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I only heard a few minutes of it but a guy on msnbc a short while ago has done an analysis which shows that Hillary's claims here are overblown. Obama currently is polling about the same amount of White working class voters as John Kerry had. I also think that people are excessively quick to jump on the race view of it all. There may be a familiarily factor, a resistance to change factor. People are thinking very small here.
May 9, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope people continue to expand on Bademus.
For the record though, I undertstood this already. How could he not be winning those people, and he is winning? Comming back in Indiana shows that to the most elementary person like me. He was double digits down a month ago there! The ire of my anger comes from her using language that does nothing to help the (Democratic Team), and yes HRC Im sorry Barrack Obama. Who's side is she on, her own's?
May 9, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink