Working Americans come in all colors

Reading through the comments, it's pretty amazing to consider what the Obama supporters are saying about Clinton. Let's refresh on what she said: "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."

Now, when Barack Obama made his claim about the "typical white person", it didn't mean anything, he was just talking generalities; and the same thing with Clinton here, but even less so [but a 'gaffe' in the same manner]. Clinton clarifies that she's talking about working Americans that Obama is not doing well with, which are typically white, and she's "ugly and divisive"? This is a lame stretch. In fact, had she had not clarified it to say "white Americans" it wouldn't have been a true claim, because Obama is doing very well among black working Americans.

Jay Cost has a blog post showing how Obama's percentage among black voters has been increasing, as a trend, with each contest:

And has his percentage among white voters been decreasing, as a trend, with each contest as well?

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)



What she said was quite clear.

You seem to be the only one interpreting it in a benign way.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-08 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

It is benign. It only gets to be otherwise in the realm of imagination.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

So is Matt Stoller a kool-aid drinker? He sees exactly what she's saying but maybe he's an Obamabot...

You should realize this renders her unelectable as Democrat.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-08 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

It's a remark meant to do two things:

1. Provoke a response from the Obama campaign and his supporters in order to racialize the election narrative and

2. Serve as a dog-whistle to working class white votes who see themselves as more hard-working than those not in their demographic category.

I don't think (1) will work and I do think it will have another effect -- lose Clinton the black superdelegates she currently holds.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Nicely stated.  I tend to agree with this logic.

I'm not sure if I believe that any Democratic campaign is willing to go this hard against black voters.  In this instance,though, there is a desperation, and they probably don't see it as very likely that they will be able to win the black vote anyway in the primaries.  

by ottto 2008-05-08 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Clinton has very little left to lose of the black vote.  It's actually been that way for a while (since before SC).  That's why polarizing the contest along racial lines is a good (vote wise, not morals wise) strategy for Clinton.  Whether Clinton has consciously pursued that strategy or not, I'm sure we all have our own opinions.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-08 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

It's not good for Clinton since it renders her unelectable in the GE. The only thing she's done is destroy her and Bill's legacy.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-08 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

It doesn't make sense as a "dog whistle" because the wrong people are hearing it...besides, the pitch is clearly aimed at the media and superdelegates, not blue collar voters who are unlikely to be obsessively following the demographic analysis crap on cable news. It's not gonna fly with the superdelegates, though...the trend there is clearly toward Obama. Besides, polls now are pretty meaningless in terms of what polls will be saying in a few months. Clinton is getting the pickup-truck vote with her gas tax pander, but at the price of totally p***ing off the Al Gore crowd and anyone who cares about the environment or economics.

by Alice in Florida 2008-05-08 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

I think everyone will hear it shortly, and they'll hear it isn't the context best calibrated to maximize it's appeal white racist resentment. They won't hear Clinton saying it, they'll hear Clinton being described as "talking bluntly about race" and people accusing the down trodden white woman of being a racist.

Also, it parallels her constant stump speech use of blue collar and working class to mean white.  

by letterc 2008-05-08 10:03AM | 0 recs
Here's what I don't understand

about the environment argument.  People who are struggling financially should shut up because they are helping the environment by not driving.

However, if one is financially secure - it's okay if they drive about.

I don't have a car -  and I'm a great believer in conservation - but this is skewed - as usual.

by Xanthe 2008-05-08 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

I think it also nixes her chances (slim to begin with) of being the VP. It doesn't help her legacy much, either.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-08 09:05AM | 0 recs
About as benign as

Reagan's "states rights" speech in 1980.  "Hey, he was just pointing out that federalism is important.  It's just some constitutional analysis."

What a joke.

by JJE 2008-05-08 06:56AM | 0 recs

this is GOP dog whistle politics at its worst.

by rebop 2008-05-08 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Why no data on white voters?  Surely he won lots of white voters in states that have overwhelmingly white populations, like ME, SD, ID, etc.  A more sophisticated analysis, focused on the proportion of whites in the state and the vote share would be helpful. See Poblamo's excellent work, which, by the way nailed the NC and IN votes.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Given the VAPORS 1/2 this site got over the "typical white person" line, or how you were (pretty much alone) as the person who took the ABSOLUTELY worse possible meaning of his Philly speech's comment about his grandmother... belittling those of us who have heard her skirt way past "this is the trend" to "only I am electable because this is the trend, and this trend has largely been the reason black people don't get elected nearly as much as equal representation would permit" and if that ain't a dog whistle -- I mean, if that isn't the very essence of Nixon's clearly racist "Southern Strategy" I don't know what is.

Jerome, You kind of disappoint me by not seeing both the problems with the comments, or how any consistancy on your part should case you to see those problems.

by Lettuce 2008-05-08 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

No, I didn't mention his grandma, that's his business. I called him out for likening Ferraro to the Wright, something I believe that I can believe in hindsight most would agree was ludicrous.

I never blogged about the comment by Obama, and only did now to show how ridiculous it is, both of these are, with whats being claimed they mean.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

I stand corrected; I should have checked against my memory, and apologize.

I will say your reticence on that matter did not spread to many diarists...

by Lettuce 2008-05-08 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Wow, an Obamabot apologized for his rantings. Amazing!

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

An Obamabot?

by cherrygarcia 2008-05-08 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Defined as anyone who doesn't blindly stand by Hillary on this site.  

by crackerdog 2008-05-08 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.


by cherrygarcia 2008-05-08 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Defined as anyone who thinks the sun rises between Obama's asscheeks. Does that include you, pray?

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

You seem like a horrible person.  I hope I'm wrong.  Have a nice day.

by crackerdog 2008-05-08 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

As her comments get worse and worse with each post, I don't think you're wrong.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-08 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

It is always the other who is horrible. Look deep into a mirror, sir, deep and long.

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Pathetic. How old are you again?

by cherrygarcia 2008-05-08 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

well in your post above you compare obama's grandma comments with hillary's "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" comments. It seems to me that the former was a (ham-fisted) go at inclusiveness and the latter either the outcome of being very tired indeed, or outright offensiveness. Or perhaps just a mere 'misspeak'.

It would be ridiculous not to talk about demographics and race, which is what you say some obama supporters want, but hillary appears to be equating 'white' with 'hard-working', and indeed with 'American'. Can't you see how and why people are antsy about this?

by ianrsuk 2008-05-08 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

inclusiveness totally wrong word, but what I mean is that he was making an attempt to talk about thorny racial issues more or less head-on. hillary was supposed to be talking about demographic and voting and made it sound like unsophisticated dog-whistling.

by ianrsuk 2008-05-08 07:44AM | 0 recs
I'll mention his grandma

Obama said that she, being a "typical white person", felt afraid when she saw a black man on the street.  It's much less ambiguously insulting--and much less true--than what Clinton said.

It's now in the bulging Republican playbook.  We can discuus it further in September.

by Upstate Dem 2008-05-08 07:33AM | 0 recs
Much less true?

Gramma ratified the statement in his book.  It's true and not insulting.

Implying that non-whites are not "hardworking Americans" is both untrue and insulting.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-08 07:39AM | 0 recs
But he never did that.

Citing two examples of something does not mean that he's "equating" them except on a very basic level.

I will reiterate my example from those days:

When I was young, my cat Sarah would come and sit on my stomach when I lay on the floor to watch TV. Being an ill-tempered cat, she would painfully extend her claws into my flesh if I tried to move and disturb her warm seat.  She did this even though it damaged the person who fed and gave her a warm spot to sit on sometimes.

Likewise, Comrade Stalin, when pressed by the nazis, similarly scorched the earth behind his retreating forces, making it unusable for feeding his people or housing them for a generation.

Thus, by your logic, I am equating Stalin to my cat, yes?

by Dracomicron 2008-05-08 07:37AM | 0 recs
least your cat never went for the jugular

siamese are insane.

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 08:19AM | 0 recs
Gonna take your word on that one

Sarah was an alleycat originally.  Lived to be 20 years old, and became more and more Stalin-esque until the day she died.

Then she came back from the dead and lived for another few years.

Hmm, maybe she was more Rasputin than Stalin.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-08 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

You may not have and I'm too lazy to check.  However, this site is yours and you didn't stop or speak out against those here that did.  

by crackerdog 2008-05-08 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Seriously, who gives a fuck.  Is there not a point where a line is crossed and you see that arguments like this are rediculous or are you going to continue to parrot Clinton talking points that are doing nothing more then causing a larger spit in the party.  

90% of the black vote has gone Democratic for years.  Maybe its because these people connect with the values of who they vote for.  In fact because his share of that demographic is going up as he meets and speaks to more and more people and is seen in the news and on tv expressing his views... it shows that people are voting more for him now as they get to know him.

If they were just voting because of his "color" the percentage of blacks voting for him would have remained consistant.  It's not like his skin color has been changing... so what the fuck is your point?

by herenow 2008-05-08 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

And it is a rediculous argument.  Of all the things that has been said by Clinton about how she is more electable, this really has gone over the edge.  The theme where only "big-states" are important just marginalized other states and suggested that their votes were worth less.  That worked out well.  /snark

Ya, you were correct in noticing yesterday that she attracts more of the republican vote (which made up 24% or something of her votes in Indiana) ... and this may help her in the general election... but this is NOT the general election.

Playing on peoples fears by suggesting Obama will not do well in that election because of who voted for him in this election is detrimental to the party... period.  

It's this type of bs argument that pisses people off about her entire campaign.  

How about rather then scaring people into not voting for your opponent because he "might" not do well 8 months from now... how about inspiring people to vote for you because you will.

That might work... and has been working... for the side that's winning.

... and about those cross-over (i.e. republican) votes that Clinton has been getting.  (especially in "open" primary states like Indiana)  How many of those republican voters do you really believe are going to vote for her over any republican candidate in the general.  Seriously and honestly.  You really believe that this is what makes her more electable?  

by herenow 2008-05-08 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Fine, by that same argument one can say that Hillary Clinton's support among hard working americans, BLACK americans, has weakened.

She is unelectable as NO democrat can win without 90% of the AA vote.

See how utterly ridiculous and absurd this argument gets? The kind of intellectual dishonesty and race baiting that one has to engage in to make that kind of argument is just sad.

Absolutely, positively, sad.

by Yalin 2008-05-08 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

It may be dishonest, it may be delusional at this point, but not "race baiting." She's talking any of that law-and-order, "I'll protect you from THOSE people" kind of crap that Republicans have used to corral fearful white voters. She's making the only "electibility" argument she's got left, and it isn't going over well with the people it's aimed at (superdelegates).

by Alice in Florida 2008-05-08 08:30AM | 0 recs
It is baiting by exclusion

This is like Bill Clinton saying

I think it would be a great thing if we had an election between two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interests of the country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on the issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.  That is my argument for her.

Notice, with the last sentence, he skillfully creates the set of devoted, issues-driven patriots to [Hillary Clinton, John McCain].

Now, Hillary Clinton is narrowing the "hardworking Americans" set to [white].

There's no reason other than to imply that blacks aren't hardworking Americans to even put the racial element in there.  West Virginia is almost entirely white (their idea of a minority is... Germans)... it goes without saying.  She could have stopped short of bringing race into it and it would have been fine.  Instead she chose to dogwhistle this like they've been doing race issues and Obama character hits all along.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-08 09:00AM | 0 recs
You know

Bill Clinton gives several speeches a day, day in, day out.  He's been doing it for months.  That's up to tens of thousands of words a day, maybe a million words in this campaign.

If the best you can do to make him out to be exclusionary and divisive is to read meanings and words he didn't say into a stump speech, then I think he's been doing a pretty damned good job of being inclusionary and welcoming.  Which is what I would expect because, despite your attempts to re-define him during this campaign, I'm pretty familiar with the man.

Notice that you couldn't just let his words stand on their own--your argument couldn't get made without explaining his words by using words he didn't say.

by Trickster 2008-05-08 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: You know

Do you think Reagan did anything objectionable talking about states' rights in Philadelphia, MS?

by The Animal 2008-05-08 11:00AM | 0 recs
A short treatise on Clinton dogwhistling

Bill Clinton is an incredibly nuanced individual with incredible speaking prowess.  I could only be so lucky to be able to convey even half of what he means with a single sentence.

I have enormous respect for Bill Clinton and his speaking ability; when I see him speaking on behalf of his wife about the economy or health care, I forget about all the partisanship and hang on his every word.

But I'm also a writer and, as a writer, I can see how he's parsing meaning of words... "That depends on what the meaning of... 'is'... is."

I explained it because it might not be immediately obvious to some; that's why people call it a "dogwhistle."  Dogwhistles are so high-pitched that they're beyond the range of human hearing, but dogs hear them just fine.  Similarly, the Clintons' manner of speaking often contains elements that are seemingly innocuous but have other meanings to certain people: either those who can understand the parlance or code that's being used, or others who subliminally see it, like a college guy who sees a poster for alcohol with the nigh-invisible rotoscoped image of a naked woman in the ice cubes, and suddenly wants to go out drinking real bad.  

To the low-information white voter in West Virginia, Hillary Clinton talking about "hardworking white Americans" seems pretty innocuous, but it subliminally calls to mind the fact that Barack Obama is not white... and that white people aren't supporting him in the numbers that they're supporting Clinton.  This draws up the natural fear of the unknown or different that has plagued humanity since our highest level of civilization was tribal society.

Nobody's saying that all of the people that think that are intentionally racist or racial... certainly some will be, but I like to think most of them vote Republican.  It is still an issue, however, and the Clintons are masters at profiting from these insecurities.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-08 11:45AM | 0 recs
Let me put it this way

You're a stalwart supporter of his political opponent.  For that reason, your interpretation of his words, unsupported by evidence, is not something that a fair-minded neutral person would put much weight into, because almost any innocent statement can be put through the statement-processing machine and come out as support for ethnic cleaning or Barry Manilow or some other evil thing.

Most neutral folks wait for someone to actually say something before they claim he said it.  They don't go through this tortured so-Machiavellianly-brilliant-that-even-h is-farts-are-carefully-planned "logic" that inexorably leads to the conclusion that every Clintonian eyebrow-twitch is meant to convey some dishonest, racist, fascistic attack against Obama.

There is a perfectly innocuous and sensible interpretation of Clinton's words.  If he had stuck that line into a middle of a bunch of stuff about Obama that supported your interpretation, you might have a point, but he didn't.  Give the man a MF-ing break for once.  There is absolutely no proof or evidence that he meant the thing he did not say but you assert that he meant.  

I can tell you, I read those words several times before I even realized what it was that some Obama folks were claiming he meant.  It just didn't come across that way to me at all.  And it pains me and irks me the way that so many Obama supporters--including that asshat Tony McPeak with his "McCarthyism"--will take a factual picture that is at best inconclusive and move straight from that inconclusive (at best) picture to an extremely ungenerous conclusion about another Democrat.  This is not what Democratic primary politics has been about in the past.

by Trickster 2008-05-08 01:16PM | 0 recs
I disagree.

I think that was a crafted message, I do not think she is such a bad politician as to use "white" in a sentence if the sentence itself isn't calculated.  This is pushing the message of Reagan, hard working, white Americans, support the big government and entitlement of "other" Americans, who usually were portrayed as "not white".   It is the typical Clinton tailored message that they are directing towards a specific audience.  And once again they have failed to understand that in 2008 everyone is going to look at it and dissect it.   And to support the idea of the Clinton "tailored message" I point to the employment of Mark Penn writer of "Microtrends" by the Clinton campaign. Bad philosophy to have in 2008 if your campaign sends out competing or negative messages, that might appeal to one group but fails or upsets another.  Like the Obama Coal Flyer in Kentuky, versus the reality of his environmental policy and message.

This is the same as the Obama San Francisco comments, he would not have used that wording if he was addressing a diffrent audience.   I am not saying his were deliberate, just that he was less careful in his message lulled by the "limited" audience.   Audiences are not limited to who is in them these days, and politicians are going to pay for it when they forget that.

I do not think the Clintons are racist in anyway.  But I think they have used race as a tool in this campaign.  Which leads to the question... When working class white people in the south were being told not to vote for a union, because it was a plot of the "n***s and commies". Who was worse the racist workers, or the managers using the racism?  Race, and Gender may be the closest thing we have to "wedge" issues in the Democratic party.  Obama did not appear to try to use Gender (and his base would have responded negatively if he did) but Clinton did seem to subtly try to use race.

Presumably people here, and in the voting booth that support Hillary are not ones that consider her "calculating and dishonest".  I do consider her that way though, so I am alot more likely to think this was a deliberate use of race, and the implication that non-whites are lazy.  It harnesses the type of racism spewed by Reagan and Lou Dobbs Disciples.  I think you will find anyone that sees her as Calculating and Dishonest will have a problem with what she said.  And I would love for you to convince that she is not, but I am afraid she is more likely to get the nomination than that to happen.

by Tumult 2008-05-08 10:08AM | 0 recs
Oh yes he did...

Amanda Fortini wrote The Feminist Reawakening: Hillary Clinton and the fourth wave (April 13, 2008)

This article speaks to the anguish I feel about the sexism displayed in this primary--and much of it by my own party! I have been having a phone/email conversation with my son about the election, and he, bless him, listened to what I was saying and forwarded me the link to Fortini's article.  Here is my response to him after I read it:

Thanks so much for that link.  Reading that article was like finally getting a drink of water after days, nay, weeks, months, in the desert.  I have been keeping up with the campaign through the TV news and news websites, as well as reading a variety of blogs and their comments.  I am so distressed at the way Hillary has been treated by the media--and by how much of it is parroted by the Obama campaign. (I'm not saying the Clinton campaign is sunshine, by any means, but then, they don't frame themselves as the paragons of virture.)  The youthful passions of young, male, Obama supporters too often cross a line for me as they harass and flame those who want to discuss candidates and issues.  It's astonishing the way that the media and the Obama supporters marginalize Hillary supporters (according to them the "only" ones supporting her are old, uneducated women...)  I've noticed many young women dissing Hillary, and feminism, too, come to think of it--I frequently hear young women saying, "Oh, I'm not a feminist..." as if it is a ridiculous idea, but they have no idea how much they owe to the women (and many of the men) of my generation. I must admit that I'm on the road to becoming hardened against voting for Obama if he wins the nomination.  I sort of feel like the Obama-meanies need a comeuppance, and they'll get what they deserve: McCain.  (So what if the reproductive rights my generation--and I--worked so hard to get are overturned--no skin off my nose, I'm postmenopausal...)


P.S.  In the comments section after the article there was reference to several sexist comments attributed to Obama, himself.  Out of curiosity, I did some research to see if he said them and it looks like he did.

1.  Of Clinton: she "periodically feels down" (reference to menstrual cycle)  so "she has to lash out at him" and  
2.  "her claws have come out"  (women, of course, have "cat fights")
These two referenced at 2008/02/is-obama-using.html

3.  Equating Clinton's international experience with "tea parties":  "It's that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassador's house, I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa,"  at 12/28/oh-oh-tempest-in-a-teapot/

(Based on my research of primary (video) and secondary (news articles and newscasts),  I also believe that the Obama campaign has repeatedly and, I might add, quite skillfully, played the race card in this contest--and I voice this despite a full realization of the flurry of accusations about me and my post that I will receive.  Regardless, I must speak the truth, as I see it.)

Sigh... I just don't know if I can get over it...

by ahw 2008-05-08 12:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh yes he did...

I agree that "claws" would not have been used if he was up against a man.  And periodically/feels down/attacks, would probably also not have been used.  I think it was more of a humorous rebuke.  But I can understand that some people would be offended by it.  And I agree that he should not have used any of that phrasing.  The Tea Party comment was actually made by a woman covering a number of those visits first if I recall, I think he was just repeating it.  But have you not heard that kind of sentiment expressed in a way that is more humorous than hostile?  My girlfriend has gone to anger management classes because of her temper, when she gets in her rages I  typically make claws and feels down/attacks references with a smile on my face and laughter in my heart, because there is no other way to deal with them that doesn't escalate the situation.

And the idiocy of supporters should not be linked to the candidates themselves.  If we did that I do not think we could vote for anyone.

My issue with the Clinton comments vs the Obama comments, is I think she has the tighter and more calculated message.  I think Obama is not very tight with his message, and when he makes these "offensive" comments it is an error in speaking.  When Clinton does it I believe that it is very deliberate.  It is like her Iraq War vote, if I thought it was a vote out of ignorance I could forgive her for it, it is because I give her credit for intelligence and knowledge that I cannot.

Blacks were going to vote for Obama anyway, too much identity, and the perception that that identity has a negative impact for them to not have done so.  So he really did not need to "use" race in his favor.  He has taken deliberate steps with consultants for racial packaging.  Overall it does not help him to be seen as black, any time it comes up he suffers a little bit for it.  He would have been better off if no one ever brought up race.  Same with the Demographics for the Democratic Primary, does he really benefit from  saying things that have the potential to "alienate" women?  No, they make up the majority of the Democratic voters in the Primary election.  He doesn't want to "play" the race card because it is not good for him to do.

He just does not benefit from bringing up race or gender, so when he says something stupid, I think it is just that, something stupid he said. Poor phrasing ect.  Just like the bitter/cling comments were.

She has made it a point to bring up gender, which I do not think can be argued.  She wants people to vote along gender lines, because it benefits her.  And men are less likely to be influenced based on gender arguements, because they do not have the identity or feel that being male has had a negative impact on them.  So it has been very useful for her to bring up gender and make it a central theme to her campaign.  Her arguements now seem to center on a race question.  So when she says something stupid that could be considered "offensive" was it an accident or deliberate?  I think it was deliberate.  Based on her using other "divisive" physical characteristic issues (gender) and it being a benefit to her campaign.

So I hope people look at the comments to see if they were accidental or deliberate.   And if there was any benefit for the people making them.
And if you think Obama has played the "race card" why do you find that more offensive than Clinton playing the "gender card"?  Because the Clintons have complained about it?

by Tumult 2008-05-08 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh yes he did...

I just heard the tape of her saying what was quoted.  I was wrong I think her phrasing was just accidental.  When I saw the transcript it was made to appear it was at a rally. (had a picture of her on a stage)  Hearing it, she did not have a complete thought together as she was saying that.   So I apologize for thinking diffrently.

by Tumult 2008-05-09 12:44AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

by The Animal 2008-05-08 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

Then there are one hell of a lot of people around this country today with very active imaginations.

by tysonpublic 2008-05-08 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: What she said was quite clear.

I tend to split the difference on this one.

1) It IS offensive. It equates 'hard-working Americans' with 'white Americans', making the assumption that to be one is to be the other. Therefore, non-white Americans aren't a part of this 'hard-working' segment of American society.

2) It wasn't intentional. When she said it, I think she was trying to say 'hard-working white Americans' and forgot the 'white' part, then threw it in there on the fly.

It WAS offensive, and it WAS a gaffe, but it WASN'T intentional race-baiting.

by EvilAsh 2008-05-09 12:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

So, what's your point?  

I don't really understand what you're trying to get at.  

by ottto 2008-05-08 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Usually, Jerome has no point.  He posts ludicrous diaries and we laugh at him for being such a tool.

mydd actually means my demented diarist, and we come here for the laughs.

by clad 2008-05-08 08:24AM | 0 recs
She could of phrased it better

Bill and Hillary Clinton don't have a racist bone in their body.

And I HATE being the PC police.

But...she could have phrased it better. It's smart politics to stay away from statements about the first serious black candidate's ability to win white folks...

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-08 06:42AM | 0 recs
She phrased it just right...

and she knew what she was doing. Don't kid yourself.

by rebop 2008-05-08 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: She phrased it just right...

Yeah it's always possible she's a pretty awful person. I'm not ruling that out! I just tend to be too optimistic about our political leaders sometimes...

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-08 06:45AM | 0 recs
I'm not saying...

she is a "bad" person. I only maintain that her words were carefully chosen to race-bait. She knows very well what she is doing with statements like this. I suspect in her heart she can justify it to herself because she has convinced herself that Obama will lose to McCain.

Maybe some here believe that as well (that Obama can't win the general) and think statements like this are justifiable on those grounds. But let's not pretend that words don't mean anything, or that when politicians talk about "hard working whites" that they are not engaging in deliberate race-baiting. It's just disingenuous.

by rebop 2008-05-08 08:37AM | 0 recs
You don't have to be a racist

to employ the southern strategy.  Just cynical and shameless.  Hillary Atwater '08!!

by JJE 2008-05-08 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to be a racist

Exactly, I don't think for a second that Clinton is racist.

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-08 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: You don't have to be a racist

It's almost worse than being racist. It's using others' racism for political gain. At least a racist has the courage of their convictions--no matter how twisted those convictions turn out to be.

by Rationalisto 2008-05-08 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: She could of phrased it better

Given how Richardson and Andrew went from "friends" to "traitors" for their evolving support for Obama, given how they've shown a clear willingness to fight along ANY LINES to win the nod, given how they went from having majority black support to virtually none at all...

... you don't think they're holding a grudge? That's what I'm hearing in her comments, more than racism. But a race-based grudge is still prejudice, by nature. Another way: I don't think there are many blacks they hate, or maybe any blacks they hate for being blacks... but I don't doubt for a minute they truly resent the black voters as a block for the lack of support.

Everything else involving their support in this race has been taken personally -- why wouldn't this? The comments suggest little else.

(And the fact so many of her supporters don't hide that very same resentment -- and often produce similar evidence to back up their point makes it even more clear that 'something is in the air' and it's coming from the top.

by Lettuce 2008-05-08 07:15AM | 0 recs

If she was going to say something, better to have a racist voter say something.

If her emphasis stopped being on the whtie voter, and started being on Appalachia, I'd have much less of a problem with it. We all know Appalachia is pretty white (at least it used to be...)

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 08:21AM | 0 recs
You're being completely disingenous

If words like that came out of Bush or McCain's mouth everyone would recognize them for what they are--blatant race baiting. The GOP has perfected this kind of devious use of language over the past 20 years, and now Clinton with aforethought and malice is doing the same thing.

by rebop 2008-05-08 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

That is true.

If a Republican came out and said, "Gee, I don't think Obama gets the white vote" it would look pretty bad.

Of course, Hillary Clinton is just engaging in harmless demographic analysis!

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-08 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

What?  There are people point it out everywhere. I just did. Obama has done less and less well with white people.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

That has not been established.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

Of course it has. You can stick your head in the sand if you want, but facts are facts. It doesn't make sense to ignore them out of some misguided political correctness.

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 08:15AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

She's getting the hard working white vote. Yeah. That's benign.

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-08 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

Look, Clinton would be ahead if white voters could vote twice. How can you possibly deny her the nomination now?

by jaiwithani 2008-05-08 07:34AM | 0 recs
Now now.

She wouldn't want that.  White voters only need 2/5 more of a vote.


by Dracomicron 2008-05-08 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

Or make African-American votes worth 3/5's of 1 vote!

by RLMcCauley 2008-05-08 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

No you're right. I think there's a difference though between Obama's opponent pointing it out and analysts pointing it out.

I don't think this is that big of a deal, for the record, and I DETEST the PC police. But...politically, it's pretty dumb for Hillary to come out and say that.

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-08 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

That sounds about right to me. Candidates always go wrong talking about the horse race in terms of demos.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

Dumb yes, racist, no. But the Clinton rules of the Old Media must be applied every time she mis-speaks.

by usedmeat 2008-05-08 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

No, of course they're not racist. But they don't mind race-baiting.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:08AM | 0 recs
That's not the issue...

I think everyone recognizes that Obama will have some work to do to win over the working class whites who have been supporting Hillary in the primaries. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying so.

What people are objecting to is Hillary's linking of "hard working" and "white," the unspoken, but clear, implication being that non-whites are not hard working. I realize some will claim that it was an accident, or just a poor choice of words, but I don't buy it. This is the same kind of statement that Republicans have been making for the past twenty years. Her words were carefully thought out and deeply offensive.

If these words came out of Bush or McCain's mouth, everyone would instantly recognize what they meant by them.

by rebop 2008-05-08 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: That's not the issue...

This is exactly the point.  The Clintons, who measure each word carefully, knew what they were doing and knew how people would respond.  

by smoker1 2008-05-08 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: That's not the issue...

Wow, you don't allow the possibility that she was specifically appealing to low-income whites by honoring them as "hard-working?" Is everything racist now? Aren't whites a race? And how about the sexism displayed in this campaign? What's your comment on that?

by VegMom 2008-05-08 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: That's not the issue...

Would it be fair to simply consider this comment without bringing other "equal" comments into the story?  

It's like when I have a fight with my wife over not cleaning up or something.  I could be an idiot and say, "Yeah, but you didn't pick up your stuff, either!"

Would that solve anything?  

by ottto 2008-05-08 07:45AM | 0 recs
It's race baiting...

not necessarily racism. I did not accuse Clinton of racism, and no, not everything is racism. But it is ugly and should be beneath someone running to be the Democratic nominee.

Singling out whites and "honoring" them for being "hard-working" is a time-tested GOP dog whistle technique.

Clinton is, if nothing else, a sophisticated politician, and she knows what she's doing here.

by rebop 2008-05-08 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

Where's the evidence?  You only posted a table showing Obama's support generally increasing among blacks.  Is this your evidence that he's doing worse and worse among whites?

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-08 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

Of course he is. He won a majority of white voters in Wisconsin. He lost them by 3:2 in NC and IND.

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: You're being completely disingenous

Like he's doing in Oregon?  Or he did in Utah?

Give me a break, Jerome.

by sorrodos 2008-05-08 08:13AM | 0 recs
you know, i look at the maps...

and obama seems to be doing quite well with rural white people.

Also, he does well with whites in really white states (Maine).

And he does better with whites who are west of the Mississippi.

He does not do at all well with folks from Appalachia....

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Just say it. The party is fracturing down income and racial lines.

by Iceblinkjm 2008-05-08 06:43AM | 0 recs
What do you say..

..about a Democratic party leader (Hillary) who is actively working to widen the fracture? It's unforgivable to me.

by JoeCoaster 2008-05-08 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

I would also argue that it's fracturing along age and gender lines as well.

by VegMom 2008-05-08 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

It came out in a very clumsy way, Jerome.  That's all.

by Steve M 2008-05-08 06:43AM | 0 recs
If McCain...

said the same thing, Democrats would be all over him. It wasn't clumsy at all. Hillary's only path to the nomination goes through a race war within the Democratic party, and she seems willing to take it there to further her own ambitions.

by rebop 2008-05-08 06:45AM | 0 recs
Don't forget the culture war too

Hillary is determined to create an inter-party red-blue divide.

by JJE 2008-05-08 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: If McCain...

I understand some Obama supporters harbor the exact same presumption of bad faith towards Hillary that they would towards a Republican.  That doesn't make it accurate, however.

by Steve M 2008-05-08 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

That's my take as well, as I don't think her intent is to damage her own ability to win african americans' votes in November if she somehow wins the nomination.  

That being said, her campaign has begun to more explicitly talk about the white working class -- instead of saying "blue collar voters" -- since NC.  I don't think there's anything inherently wrong about talking about demographics like that -- it's certainly not racist to do so -- but I also don't think it's a coincedence that the campaign was careful to be very PC prior to NC, which is the last primary state with a significant african american population.  I also don't think it's particularly helpful for Senator Clinton to push the idea that the guy who is very likely to be our nominee can't win "white voters" in the fall.  But if she's still in, she's still in, and I get that the "my base is bigger than your base" is her strongest argument right now.    

by HSTruman 2008-05-08 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

I think "white working class" is the kind of category political scientists and operatives talk about.  I'm not saying the term should be taboo in ordinary discourse, but it comes across a little differently to people who aren't used to hearing that particular label.  Most people don't think to themselves, "Hey, I'm a member of the white working class!" - and I kinda like it that way.

What happened here, obviously, is that Hillary decided to turn the "working-class" term into "hard-working Americans," which sounds a little better.  But then when you realize you have to throw the qualifier "white" in there, well, it just makes it awful.  But I mean, the people making comparisons to Lee Atwater are just nuts, and certainly not helping the unity cause.

by Steve M 2008-05-08 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Agreed on all counts.  Hillary isn't my favorite person in the world, but it seems pretty clear to me that this was just a mangled statement.  With fellow democrats, at the very least, we should at least make a good faith effort to understand what they were trying to say.  If you do that here, it's pretty clear what she meant.

by HSTruman 2008-05-08 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Well, it is comforting to know that at least one Obama supporter doesn't believe she's the second coming of George Wallace!

by Steve M 2008-05-08 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

People can really get overheated during the silly season.  On both sides.  Hopefully, that kind of hyperbole will stop once this is wrapped up completely.  

by HSTruman 2008-05-08 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Forget "if McCain" -- we already know what happens "if Obama" says stuff even close to this:

'Bittergate' and the 'Typical White Americans' line and Jeromes personal outrage that Obama "threw his grandmother under the bus" were instances of Obama discussing the demo. He was pilloried (hilloried?) for it here and across the media universe for his racial insensitivity.

But Clinton's just talking, you know, demography.

by Lettuce 2008-05-08 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Didn't Obama apologize for or clarify the "typical" comment?  Maybe I'm misremembering.  If I were Hillary, I'd certainly try to apologize for this clumsy phrasing.

If your point is that the people who immediately accused Obama of harboring the worst intent are little different from the people who are accusing Hillary of harboring the worst intent, you might be right about that.  I'm not sure if that's your point, though.

by Steve M 2008-05-08 08:11AM | 0 recs
she was specifically asked about it

... and a diary on kos quotes her as saying "these are the people you need to win"

She should be using the past tense.

Get the black vote, get the professionals, and get enough of the vast middle to push yourself over the edge. That's obama's strategy, and it is a lot better strategically than hillary's 'I wish republican women would vote for me' strategy [this is not to say anything about hillary's strategy for the primary. her campaign had a glass jaw, and obama hit it.]

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: she was specifically asked about it

The people we're talking about ARE people in the "vast middle."  Hillary is fixated on this group because the way they swing typically determines elections in this country.  They're not the only group out there, but Axelrod's "we're never going to get 51% of the white working class, so screw 'em" attitude is unhelpful.

The only thing we know about Obama's coalition is that it is better for winning a Democratic primary.  I am concerned by how many elements of the traditional Democratic coalition seem to be going by the wayside.  You may be confident that we are adding more than enough new voters to make up for the ones we lose; I am still nervous about it.  When my grandfather who has voted for every Democrat since FDR seems to loathe Obama, that's not something I can write off.

by Steve M 2008-05-08 08:40AM | 0 recs
stay concerned, it's better than being complacent

we could wish you homeless under a ledge
with a mind that burns through the skull's thin edge
better so, in the sleety rain
than plump and cozy in belly and brain.


My republican inlaws voted Obama this primary (not sure what they'll do the general, of course). But hey, it's something.

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: she was specifically asked about it

Obama's coalition OF COURSE is best for the Democratic Party. It's not based in racial straw-graspings and despiration.

By the way, I don't doubt the GOP will try racial straw-grasphings and despiration. It will cause a great deal of consternation, but will fail just like Hillary.

She has squandered all good will I have left for her campaign. I was happy to see she could end last week (and this week) on a winning note.

The second we learned that, to her, hard working Americans are white, well, I wish her campaign well. Strom would be proud.

by Lettuce 2008-05-08 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: she was specifically asked about it

Oh, put a sock in it.  Do you think flinging these accusations of racism helps your candidate one fucking bit?  You need to get over this delusion that you already have every voter you need for November.

by Steve M 2008-05-08 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: she was specifically asked about it

Hillary's campaign is pinning their latest-final hopes on the idea that white people won't vote for a black man. One statement to that extent might by clumsy, two would be confusing. But they're not even trying to hide it anymore, and the only ones trying to deny that she's not trying to make the case that Dems can't win without whites who won't vote for Obama -- which is just a roundabout way of saying "don't vote for Obama because he's objectionable to racists." I find that, as a democrat, to be the most craven, disgusting wedge argument I've heard this cycle, and I've heard it A LOT.

You think the dogwhistle isn't being heard? Have fun with the anger towards, and I quote: "THE MAJORITY OF WHITE DEMOCRATS STANDING BY AND LETTING THE AA HIJACK OUR PARTY!" ts

Just read it, and weep for the country.

by Lettuce 2008-05-08 11:03AM | 0 recs
what exactly are you trying to do?

convince people that Obama sucks and that people should not vote for him.

He is winning by every metric. And yet it seems thats not good enough to convince you that he should be the nominee.

by kindthoughts 2008-05-08 06:43AM | 0 recs
Odd times

Some are in a hard position; understanding  a candidate has won the primary, but not prepared to believe of even explore the possibility that that candidate can win the general.  I think that may be some of what is going on here. How do you say "he can't win" when he is the nominee, without actually feeling like you are doing even more damage to his chances,and when you are almost, but not 100%, convinced that she has lost.  A whole bunch of things are swirling around right now, polling down the line will help clarify some of it but only after the primary is done.

by mady 2008-05-08 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Odd times

Odd times indeeed.  I think they started once Clinton basically abandoned her issues-based approach--which was her greatest strength--and turned to the electability argument once Obama started pulling ahead in every metric.  I think it was a crucial choice for her, because the dialogue was great when she was talking about health care and Iraq, and has grown steadily worse since she and her surrogates have been talking about whose race/class/age coalition is or should be the face of the Democratic party.

Once her supporters picked up the electability meme, I think many of them invested so much of themselves into it that vindicating it is all that matters.  That's why you see so many moving from "Obama can't beat McCain"--which is a legit argument--to "I need Obama to lose to McCain to validate all the hard work and passion I've poured into supporting Clinton."

We're through the looking glass.

by Koan 2008-05-08 07:56AM | 0 recs
Typical white person

I'd also argue that the "typical white person" comment by Obama was also a gaffe. Sure, he didn't mean it in a disparaging way, but you don't want to say something like that. it a gaffe because we make it a gaffe? Or is it actually a gaffe? I'd say the latter.

by Democratic Unity 2008-05-08 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical white person

And no one in the Clinton camp was slightly offended about the "typical white person" comment. Jerome was all "interesting social analysis, Obama, we should discuss it at next week's brown bag seminar on electorial movement among racial groups!"

And then we all went to the kegger.

And... scene!

by Lettuce 2008-05-08 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Typical white person

What was Obama's 'typical white person' gaffe, for those of us with short memories?

I sure don't remember anything on the level of eliding 'working Americans, hard-working Americans' with 'white Americans.'

Given the number of times this year that the Clintons and their surrogates have said things that have, at a minimum, been at the border of playing the race card, I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.  Fooled once, shame on you; fooled a dozen times, shame on me.

by RT 2008-05-08 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Clinton wins old white voters...ok, that is pretty obvious.  I'm not sure Clinton should have said it that flatly, her staff did yesterday.  We can win without them, and we ought to!  These are the same voters (perhaps a generation removed) that Nixon's southern strategy, and Reagan announcement speech in philidelphia mississippi declaring a "return to local control", were dog-whistles too - a dog Whistle that John McCain repeated with "strict judges" two years ago.  To quote Hillary Clinton I say "Screw Them"

by cardboard 1 2008-05-08 06:45AM | 0 recs
your stats are prove he is a divider

by engels 2008-05-08 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: your stats are prove he is a divider

Your demeanor proves you're a divider. Sorry, but if you're telling me Hillary Clinton is less divisive than Barack Obama, I only have one thing to point out.

by ragekage 2008-05-08 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: your stats are prove he is a divider

No, because there have been no data provided showing Obama's share of white voters, just an assertion. I'd like to see the data, also keeping in mind that some states are overwhelmingly white and so he would of course have won a large share of the white vote in those states.  He'll do the same thing in MT and SD, very white states.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: your stats are prove he is a divider


Jerome seems to recognize that since he's been around for awhile and has a big megaphone that some people will follow him down the road to truthiness when makes assertions without data to base them on.

Assertions like:

And has his percentage among white voters been decreasing, as a trend, with each contest as well?

by sorrodos 2008-05-08 08:17AM | 0 recs
It's the hard-working part

Jerome -

The issue is Hilary's quoted implication that only white people are hard-working.

That said, to understand the difference between what Obama was saying and what Hillary is saying, you have to look to the ultimate intent:  

Obama was speaking with the intent to show how both blacks and whites have pre-conceived notions about one another and how these notions continue to divide us, which is a bad thing.

HRC was speaking with the intent to show how blacks and whites are voting differently and how this is a good thing for her and her campaign.  Hillary is promoting (or at least taking advantage of) the divisiveness between the races; whereas Obama is trying to erase the divisiveness.  

Big difference.

by MikeyB 2008-05-08 06:48AM | 0 recs
I beg to differ

Hillary was talking political demographics and stated a demographic voting fact, unless you isolate her words, removing the context, and read into them.

Obama may be trying to erase divisiveness, but you'd never know it from the hypersensitive, judgmental, castigating way many of his supporters on political blogs conduct themselves.

And let's not forget that there wasn't a trace of any racial or divisive overtone in this campaign until Obama invited anti-gay bigot Donnie McClurkin to join him on his S. Carolina tour.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-08 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: I beg to differ

Why am I not surprised somehow this is all HIS fault.

by cherrygarcia 2008-05-08 07:25AM | 0 recs
That's not what I said

or even implicated, but now that you mention it, I wouldn't call it his fault, but there's no denying he opened the door.

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-08 07:31AM | 0 recs
Oh, McClurkin again


Obama is by far the most gay-friendly candidate.  You gotta get over the McClurkin thing.  It was one incident.

Clinton pretends gays don't exist when she's not around them.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-08 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, McClurkin again

Like you'd know. Hilarious!

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Maryland is not the south.  We're a very proud member of the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast if you don't like that category.

by umcpgreg 2008-05-08 06:50AM | 0 recs
News to me!

then again, I didn't realize PA was appalachia, so I figgure I'm sorta ignorant.

You're welcome to join the club, but last I checked, you were south of the Mason Dixon line.

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: News to me!

I think the Mason-Dixon line is an antiquated definition of the North-South divide.  The new line lies at the southern border of Virginia.

Culturally, economically, politically, geographically, religiously we're not a part of the south.  Really the only argument one could make is that Maryland is historically South, but we didn't even secede!

by umcpgreg 2008-05-08 09:30AM | 0 recs
Point made!


by RisingTide 2008-05-08 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Well, Jerome, you tell me how you and the folks will reconcile this to the country when Obama becomes the nominee, and I may feel more inclined to engage in a debate on this.

If you truly are going to practice what you preach, and try to elect progressive democrats in the fall, I expect you're formulating plans for how you can help Obama overcome these obstacles and such you attribute to him, and how to explain away when the Republicans gleefully use statements from people like you bashing Obama against us in the fall.


by ragekage 2008-05-08 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors


by sorrodos 2008-05-08 08:18AM | 0 recs
It's patently stupid

do people who earn more than $40,000 not work for their money?  The implication that you aren't "hard-working" if you're not living paycheck to paycheck is ridiculous.  Does Chelsea not work very hard for her hedge fund?

Hillary's intent on insulting as many voters apparently as her epic flameout reaches its inevitable conclusion.  It was probably foolish to expect even a little bit of class and grace from someone named Clinton.

by JJE 2008-05-08 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: It's patently stupid

Yea, I consider that part to be more of a gaffe.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: It's patently stupid

You're an idiot.

by VegMom 2008-05-08 07:38AM | 0 recs
Great substantive reply

Your subtle argumentation and mastery of the facts is impressive!

by JJE 2008-05-08 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Great substantive reply


by Rationalisto 2008-05-08 09:35AM | 0 recs
She must have been referring...

to hard working white folks like Mark Penn who was too shiftless and lazy to bother figuring out that California (and every other state) awarded delegates proportionally.

Clinton supporters would be better off directing their bitterness at Mark Penn than the hard working black folks who voted for Obama.

by rebop 2008-05-08 06:51AM | 0 recs
Josh Marshall nailed this...

Hillary didn't make a racist statement by implying Obama had a problem winning over "hard working white Americans."

However, there is an implicit racist statement within the sentiment:  That there's a problem with losing the working class white vote.  Democrats haven't won the white vote since Johnson.  Democrats don't need to win the white vote, as they win 90% plus of the Black vote, and usually around 60% of the Latino vote.  Sure, it would be nice to have a landslide, but a democrat doesn't need it to win.  

By arguing Obama has a problem because he's not winning "hard-working whites" there is an implicit argument that working-class white votes somehow count more than black votes.  And this is racist.  

by telephasic 2008-05-08 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Josh Marshall nailed this...

This is a positively ridiculous argument.

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

It was no biggie, Hillary was tired, but it was a tad unfortunate to add/endorse "hard working" to the description of her white support.

There is not much polling evidence on just how "hard working" the respective supporters are (partly because there is no real definition of "hard working", it is in the ear of the beholder).

It leaves open the implication that 'my' white supporters are "harder working" than 'your' black supporters. Obviously that implication was not Hillary's intention  but it is not the sort of slip that a contender at the top of his/her game would make.

by My Ob 2008-05-08 06:53AM | 0 recs
You could make this a lesson

It's not that only whites are working class, it's that we have a flawed image of that word.  

If you did a study where you showed people pictures of different racial groups and asked them to pick out the "working class," the "upper class," the "middle class," and the "lower class," I think there would be some pretty interesting answers based on ingrained images of our fellow Americans.  

by ottto 2008-05-08 06:54AM | 0 recs
working class IS lower class

upper-lower class to be precise.

by RisingTide 2008-05-08 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

"Good, hard-working people, white people"

And you're surprised that fewer and fewer African Americans are voting for Clinton? I'm half-white, and I'm pretty sickened at the Clinton campaign at this point. They've made their stand on ignorance - racial ignorance, economic ignorance, even mathematical ignorance - and it's hurting all of us.

You think it's a coincidence that the racial disparity increases as the Clintons descend further and further into into the realm of Republican tactics? It's the southern strategy applied to the Democratic primary. Nixon would be proud.

Frak them.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-08 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Of course, you have to ignore the context, otherwise you wouldn't be able to write that:

"that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again"

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 07:06AM | 0 recs
Full context

"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."

Invoking (white) race twice in the same sentence, equating being white with being hard-working, and worst of all, the implication that Clinton should be winning with fewer voters because her voters are whiter.

We can take this to it's natural conclusion and just allocate non-whites a fraction of a vote next time.

by jaiwithani 2008-05-08 07:27AM | 0 recs
Ahh, yes...

Context. What happened to that when you ripped Obama's Philly speech? What happened to them when you lit up Donna Brazile about the "old coalition" (which, btw, she was right about - we do need to expand our base and Obama can do that). Condescending lectures on "context" don't buy back credibility, Jerome.

Let's assume for the sake of your argument that she simply 'misspoke'. In a way, that makes it even worse. Her 35 years in politics (16 on the national stage), a long and solid relationship with the black political class and the affection of millions of minority voters, and a keen awareness of how demographics shape elections, make such a "gaffe" even more perplexing. Why would she continue to make comments that could even be remotely interpreted as cleaving the party along racial lines? This isn't the first time, Jerome. Either she thinks she can win in November without a large black turnout in her favor, or is simply taking them for granted, and neither of those possibilities really demonstrate respect for  what amounts to almost a fourth of her party's base. All to pick up a couple of points with white voters - which she won't win a majority of in November anyway. It's shortsighted survival politics.  

by SuperTex 2008-05-08 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

The problem for me is that Clinton, either with malice or benignly, is reinforcing a Repblican narrative by saying this crap and she is doing so when there is no chance she can win the nomination.

by bdub78 2008-05-08 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Hillary Clinton stepped on her own tongue. She was trying to scare the superdelegates with racially-loaded identity-politics threats, and her pander overdrive kicked in, and she threw the "hard-working" in there trying to flatter those "working class" voters, and wound up over playing her hand. Again.

She really oughta just stop digging.

Some of her supporters too.

by BlueinColorado 2008-05-08 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Why don't you just come out and say it Jerome:

"He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."

Don't let the fact that's a quote from Rush stop you.

by Piuma 2008-05-08 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

That was my complaint:  Her comment is totally a right-wing talking point.

by bdub78 2008-05-08 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

No, he has gotten beyond those groups, but less so as this has went on. Of course, I go by the exit polls, which you may have a problem with too.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

You're going by what you decide to go by in the exit polls.  When you take a state as predominantly White as Indiana and Obama wins by 7% from the voters between 17 and 65, then the group he is having trouble with is not White Working Class voters but Senior Citizens.  If you choose to make another argument, you are choosing your distinctions.  You have chosen to frame the argument this way.

by Piuma 2008-05-08 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

You're full of crap. /8/114550/1998/837/511733

by crackerdog 2008-05-08 11:33AM | 0 recs
When Obama made his comment it

was in a speech that was about race.  Race was the topic, particularly race relations between black and white people in this country.  Can't very well talk about race without talking about well, race.

Hillary brings up race in speeches about how electable she is.  And she talks about the working class as if it is made up of whites.

There's a difference Jerome...and it's a pretty big difference.

by GFORD 2008-05-08 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: When Obama made his comment it

You are wrong. The Obama comment was not made during a speech, but during an interview with WIP in Philly.

by Liberty 2008-05-08 07:06AM | 0 recs
The topic of the conversation?


by GFORD 2008-05-08 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The topic of the conversation?

Reverand Wright.

by Liberty 2008-05-08 07:19AM | 0 recs
Which in the end related to race n/t

by nklein 2008-05-08 07:20AM | 0 recs
Hillary spoke the plain truth

The Clintons were the best friends Black America ever had. How soon forgotten.

by observer5 2008-05-08 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary spoke the plain truth

According to the Clintons, at least.

by bdub78 2008-05-08 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary spoke the plain truth

Ricky Ray Rector and everyone who lost a habeas petition because of AEDPA might beg to differ.

by JJE 2008-05-08 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary spoke the plain truth

How so?  As HRC pointed out, it was LBJ that got the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act passed, not to mention lots of other laws and regulations.

What did Bill Clinton do for the black community? Sure, he was better than Reagan and Bush, but certainly not in the LBJ category.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary spoke the plain truth

What has any Democrat member of congress done for black people lately?

by usedmeat 2008-05-08 07:15AM | 0 recs
There is one thing.

A black Senator is currently proving that a minority can win the Democratic nomination for president.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-08 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary spoke the plain truth

I agree Politicsmatters,

I keep hearing how much Bill did for black folks and I can't think of one piece of legislation--and I am black!

Having the ability to connect with different groups of people is great, (remember Bush speaking to latinos in spanish?) but it is not the same as making public policy that helps that community.

Again, if anybody can specifically state what Bill Clinton did in terms of public policy that specificaly helped AA community?

by susu1969 2008-05-08 07:26AM | 0 recs
What's your point?

You admitted she lost, why bring questions about Obama's candidacy.  Especially since they are larger founded on a false premise of comparing primary support to general election support.  I'm asking praise Obama or ignore the news, but what's the point of perpetuating these silly stereotypes.

by nklein 2008-05-08 07:02AM | 0 recs
Sloppy Statement


Can we at least agree that she could have expressed the idea more artfully?  I think we should all cut our candidates some slack and stop parsing every word they utter for some sort of bias, but you seem to be arguing that this came out just fine.

Also, the analogy to the "typical white person" remark seems silly to me, unless you are saying this - like that - is a statement that should have been more articulately expressed.  

by HSTruman 2008-05-08 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Sloppy Statement

Yea, that's what I was saying, they are both just gaffes.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Sloppy Statement

When are going to post some data on Obama's share of the white vote? Your chart only has his share of the black vote.  Please divide it so that we can see highly white states and ones that are more racially diverse, since that seems to be a factor.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Sloppy Statement

Fair enough.  In that case, I agree.  

by HSTruman 2008-05-08 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Man, special pleading knows no bounds.

Clinton never misspeak; she parses her words more carefully than any other candidate I've ever seen.  She knew exactly what her "ambiguous" syntax would do.

George Wallace, at least, had the courage of his convictions; Clinton will be whatever helps her win, including a working-class girl from Scranton or an unrepentant racist.

Sure, it's deniable on its face as a poorly worded but "accurate" statement.  That's why she phrased it the way she did.  She's a master of the game, I'll give her that.  This is the Southern Strategy, make no mistake.

Appalling, simply appalling.  

by realcountrymusic 2008-05-08 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

I watched a good segment last night on the NewsHour regarding the issue of race and the media in the campaign.  A central point of two of the guests was that race is addressed so simplistically that it ends up abetting a reductive and divisive understanding.  For example, their are numerous euphemisms to describe the white vote (nascar dad, soccer mom, elite latte drinker, blue collar), but the black vote is lumped together.  I think the implications are negative for both sides: the African American vote comes off as unsophisticated sheep simple following a black candidate and the white vote comes off as bigots.  Neither, of course, are true.  Hillary's comments, while seemingly and perhaps intended as benign, play into the reductive treatment of race which underlies so much of the anger here at mydd and across the country.  
From my point of view, Jerome's post continues the trend of just dealing with racial controversy rather than race relations.  In addition, it ignores the fact that Hillary knew there would be a reaction to this statement.  Whether there should be is a moot question.  Hence, the question for Jerome and Hillary is why point this out in such a simplistic manner if it's not about, on some fundamental level, making Obama the "black candidate"?

As for Obama's "typical white person" comment... I really think you do yourself and your blog a disservice in comparing the two.  Obama's comment was contextualized by a much more thorough commentary on race.  Clinton's was not.  That fact of the matter is that race can not be treated casually in this country.  Doing so is irresponsible.  

by chrispy 2008-05-08 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Yes, its' always "Hillary knew" but Obama is "contextualized". Have you tried looking at what she said in context?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Yep, I listened to the audio. She says "white" several times. (Listen to it here 508/White_Americans.html)

And when will you be establishing that Obama keeps getting fewer white votes?  And what's your prediction on his share of the white vote in OR, SD, and MT?

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

PRetty high. I think it'd make more sense to look at it regionally.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 08:11AM | 0 recs
white votes

What do you think Obama's percentage among white voters will be in MT and SD? He's expected to win both, so surely he'll have a high percentage.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: white votes

The only white votes that count are the ones that Hillary gets....don't you know that?

by JoeCoaster 2008-05-08 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: white votes

And, since those are the last states to vote, that will mean Obama's support among white voters is surging!  Or, is it just a bad idea to draw big national implications from just a couple of states???

by soccerandpolitics 2008-05-08 07:23AM | 0 recs
The answer to your second question, Jerome

is, no. And once again you use accidents of the calendar to find a trend that's really more geographic than demographic. And age-agraphic, if you will.

Further, you have made up your mind that the Dem candidate CANNOT win without a larger % of the uneducated blue-collar white vote, which is predicated on a) that these people will never vote for Obama in a general and that he has zero chance to win them over (why is that?) and b) this was our only path to victory in years past (it wasn't for Bill).

You seem intent to just ignore the mounting evidence that Obama, when given the floor at a retail level, has done a magnificent job selling himself to voters of every stripe. Hard to deny since his national numbers have gone from ~20% to ~50% in the last 5 months - while Hillary hasn't demonstrated any ability to expand her own base, going from ~42% last November to a whopping ~45% now.

I don't call for Clinton to quit because, like you, I think the sum total of this primary season will ultimately benefit the party and our nominee.

And I'm not a kool-aid drinker who thinks Obama will save us all and bring about racial and economic utopia. On the contrary, I look at this whole thing in very pragmatic terms. The numbers are there. Cherry-picking crosstabs from Ohio and Pennsylvania amounts to just being completely obtuse amount the big picture. Then you apply double standards when you rake Brazile over the coals for something she did not do, then turn around and defend Clinton for poor word-smithing when her rhetorical pattern of late has clearly been to delineate a racial divide and "claim" the white working-class vote.

I don't think Clinton is a bigot for doing this - and I don't think she's intentionally throwing black voters under the bus; in fact, I think she's playing the best cards she has at this point - but it is what it is: Ultimately not a positive reinforcement of the unity this party and it's potential supporters will need to win in November - and I mean more than just the White House.  

by SuperTex 2008-05-08 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: The answer to your second question, Jerome

"And I'm not a kool-aid drinker who thinks Obama will save us all and bring about racial and economic utopia. On the contrary, I look at this whole thing in very pragmatic terms. The numbers are there. Cherry-picking crosstabs from Ohio and Pennsylvania amounts to just being completely obtuse amount the big picture. Then you apply double standards when you rake Brazile over the coals for something she did not do, then turn around and defend Clinton for poor word-smithing when her rhetorical pattern of late has clearly been to delineate a racial divide and "claim" the white working-class vote."

You don't have to be a kool-aid drinker to see that someone with Hillary's HUGE negatives will have an uphill battle against McCain.  Somewhere near 50% of this country hates her guts.  In what will be, effectively, a 2 person race, that's a tough metric to overcome.

And don't be surprised by Jerome's double standard.  It's his thing.

Hillary went racial today, period.  People can argue about it being a gaffe or say that it wasn't intentional but given the tone of her camp, it's clear there's talking points from high up they've decided to follow.  This is her battle of the bulge and it ought to sicken progressives.

Lastly, I suggest you check the link below out for a rational discussion of the "trend" in white votes.  You won't find that type of rational analysis here.  Here it's all about Hillary's mystical powers. /8/123531/4221/814/511772

by crackerdog 2008-05-08 11:45AM | 0 recs
Democratic Surge

Regardless of who you support, this is cool: 8.08%20DNC%20MEMO.pdf

by mady 2008-05-08 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

I agree with Jerome that it's silly to call Clinton's statement racist (it was just poorly phrased).

However, aren't you able to answer the question you posed, Jerome?  Has Obama's support among white voters been decreasing?  In fact, his support among white voters in NC was comparable to his support in earlier southern states (see AL, MS, SC), and his support among white voters in Indiana was substantially better than in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

So the real problem with Clinton's statement isn't that it's racist, it's that it's just false.

by snaktime 2008-05-08 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

I don't know, I thought maybe someone would point me to where that data's already been done along the same lines as what Cost did.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-08 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

You need a research assistant!

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Kos looked at NC and IN and found that the divide is more along age lines (65+) than any racial lines. /7/155114/3294/352/511193

by map 2008-05-08 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Comments like these are why people hate politics.  You take a view that reflects your personal loyalties and viewpoint and act like you are making some principled statement.

Here we have a black candidate and the statement is that he is not doing well with whites.  You can see this benignly - if you are from Mars.  Anyone who has been in America the last 150 years would see it differently.  

Cut the partisan comments (Hillary vs. Obama).  And if you make them, please don't pretend you are some kind of impartial observer who's opinions are based on analysis.

by mcguigan97 2008-05-08 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

It seems pretty clear what's going on here: Clinton, backed into a corner, is coming right out and saying what she'd only hinted at previously: that Obama is unelectable because much of white America isn't ready for a black president.

I don't know if she's racist to say this (it does raise my PC-hackles, admittedly), but I'd be ashamed to be a Democrat if the Party turned out (a) to have so little faith in the American people; and (b) to be too cowardly to give the American people a chance to vindicate that faith.

by seand 2008-05-08 07:17AM | 0 recs
Obama declining among white voters

If you compare neighboring states with nearly identical demographics, VA and NC, Obama is doing much worse with white voters.

Over a less than 3 month period, white male support declined 40.3% while white female support declined nearly 27%.

The difference is that VA voters didn't know much about Obama on Feb 12 but NC votes knew a lot more on May 6.

Considering how much Obama's support declined in less than 3 months, what about the next 6 months? Surely the nice Repubs, the jolly GOP, and those sweet 527 groups wouldn't dare mention anything about Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Khalidi, Edward Said, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, James H. Cone's Black Liberation Theology, Trinity UCC, and Obama's efforts in Kenya and his support of cousin Odinga who wants to bring Sharia law to Kenya, right? Surely there would be no mention of Obama's involvement with slimy Chicago politicos, right?

Looks like Obama is headed the way of Dukakis. Will the Democratic party ever learn? They managed to lose 7 of the past 10 presidential contests so maybe not.

by Nobama 2008-05-08 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama declining among white voters

Biggest. Concern troll. Ever.

by cherrygarcia 2008-05-08 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama declining among white voters

Indeed. You. Are.

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama declining among white voters

You are cherry-picking.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama declining among white voters

In 2004, Bush won NC by 12pts and VA by 6pts.  So the States are not the same even though they have similar racial demographics.  It has very little to do with Feb Obama vs. May Obama.

by map 2008-05-08 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama declining among white voters

You are picking VA but why not also look at Georgia, SC, Alabama, and MS:  I believe his white vote percentage in NC was squarely in the middle of that set.  There is no clear trend of him losing white votes.

by snaktime 2008-05-08 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

What makes Hillary think that all whites are hard working.  Today I wasn't working hard at all.  LOL.

by Spanky 2008-05-08 07:19AM | 0 recs

Get a new business model.  You bet on the wrong horse.  Then you dug a whole.  Now you have hit rock bottom and your digging.  You can't seem to change course.  Sometimes you try and then the next day you roll back to 6 months ago in tone.  I'm going to start posting fantastic recipes instead of diaries.  Maybe we can get you some traffic.  How are those advertising slots selling?

by SovSov 2008-05-08 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

If Clinton misspoke, I expect a clarification and an apology.

But she didn't misspeak; this is her final pitch.  The race card, the fear card, the hate card.

I don't think she's a racist; I think she's unprincipled.

But even as a strategy, this was dumb.  Black superdelegates will not tolerate this, and she has many still to lose.  Many other progressive SDs will see this as proof that she plans to tear the party apart on her way out the door and into the sunset, setting herself up for 2012, perhaps, or just being a sore loser.

All she has just done is accelerate her own departure under duress.  She cut Obama no slack when he "chose his words poorly" a few times,  repeatedly hitting him on the "bitter" comments and even dogwhistling "San Francisco" herself, just like Bill O'Reilly was writing her stump speecg.  Turnabout is fair play when the future is at stake;  that's been the HRC supporter riff justifying stressing Wright and "bitter" and bowling and flag pins all along.

Well, along with that innocuous populist claptrap, you get to keep another stereotype stuck to your lapel like a flag pin, Madame Senator.  Racist.

Next thing you know she'll be proposing a rollback of school integration and decrying affirmative action as reverse racism.

Shameless, like her husband.

by realcountrymusic 2008-05-08 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

She is not racist. Nor is Bill.

And I think it's better politics for Obama and his campaign to not say anything; that would be taking the bait.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

the discussion started with Ed Koch- Ed has only one desired policy goal which has Israel at its center. He consistently attacks Carter who,substantively, was one of the best democratic presidents.

by rocky 2008-05-08 07:23AM | 0 recs
Clearly how we see the numbers depends on our lens

When I look at what you've put up there, Jerome, what leaps out at me first is that Clinton has gone from have the support of more than 40% of AA voters to less than 20%.

We can argue about the importance of the white blue collar vote in winning in the fall.  I certainly think that Obama and the party need to make sure the union vote is solid and comes out.  But no Democrat can imagine winning nationally without the AA voting being there and solid.

As to Senator Clinton's words.  I feel the same way about this as I did about Bill Clinton's SC ones.  These are savvy political people and those words are careless, especially when they start piling up.

(I also felt this way about Obama's "claws" remark.  Not intentionally sexist, but careless language offensive to a demographic with whom he was already weak.  The only difference is that he seems to have learned and been more careful. )

by mijita 2008-05-08 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

BTW, David Bonior's endorsing Obama today.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:24AM | 0 recs
is Black support for HRC dropping?

Could it be that HRC's attempts to polarize the electorate along racial lines has caused Blacks to move away from her and toward Obama?

It seems implausible that the Obama campaign would be attempting to court Black voters as Black voters. This is a losing strategy. There aren't enough votes there and it risks offending other constituencies.

Is Jerome implying Obama is courting Black voters to the exclusion of others?

Is Jerome implying Blacks are doing something wrong in voting for Obama in large numbers?

by Carl Nyberg 2008-05-08 07:25AM | 0 recs
How does this sound?

Obama gets 90% of the hard-working, middle class  black people.  Hillary gets a slim majority of women.

Does it make it sound like women don't work hard, like women aren't in the middle class?

Semantics plays a role in how statements are perceived.  

by GFORD 2008-05-08 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

How many white, working class Americans do some of you Clinton supporters actually know?  

Demography is destiny only if you accept categories that haven't been accurate for years, and that are an inch thick and a mile wide.  Obama cracks through them every time he says he's had enough of slice and dice politics.  No message of his resonates on a gut level more than that one.  Millions of Americans are ready to hear that at last.  Obama won the primary, may we remind ourselves, with millions of white working class votes, even if Clinton had more of them.  Those millions  of people aren't that different from most of the ones who voted for Clinton, or if they are, the ones who voted for Clinton but really can't stand the idea of a black president wouldn't have voted for her in the general either with a nice, old-fashioned white male war hero of a certain age on the opposite ticket.

And her "populism" would have been quickly revealed as an act in any case.  Her record does not support it; her ideology has always been elitist in the good sense, but it's on the record. She has many "bitter" comments of her own out there on the record, starting with Tammy Wynette and leading up to this one.  She has her own Wrights and Ayres in the closet.  And she's a notorious triangulator who could never keep all the compartments separate through a fierce general election with all of her baggage.

She's done, so the point is moot unless you care about the democratic party coming together, and that means letting the failed Clinton candidacy go.

by realcountrymusic 2008-05-08 07:28AM | 0 recs
But some colors are more equal

Than others, right, Jerome?

Acknowledging that Clinton fares better among white voters and Obama fares better among black voters is not controversial.

What is controversial - and evil - is the suggestion that because Clinton has prevailed among white voters, we should ignore the fact that she has lost among all voters, and award her the nomination.

The time when a black person was three-fifths of a white person is past.  I don't want to see it resurrected in the Democratic Primary.

Both candidates have, after a fashion, created multiracial coalitions in their effort to win - the question should be which one has created the larger one, not which one has created the whiter one.

by Drew 2008-05-08 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Its a gaffe for sure. I have not heard the quote in context. Obviously it reads horribly and is just not what anybody (Clinton or OBama supporters) want to hear right now.

by wasder 2008-05-08 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Wow--just listened to the audio and it sounds worse than it reads. She clearly is implying that White Americans are the hard working Americans. If she didn't mean to imply that she really screwed up the way she phrased that. I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt as I don't think she would be so stupid as to say that intentionally but that is more than just a little slip of the tongue. Its a major f-up.

by wasder 2008-05-08 07:49AM | 0 recs
Not a Suprising Result

As the primary season goes on, more African-Americans realize that a fellow African-American can actually win the presidency. As they become more confident he can win, the more likely they vote for him.

The fact that Obama is winning the black vote by such wide margins is not surprising and not unique to African-Americans. In 1976, Southern pride was the reason why Jimmy Carter held on to win the general election. Many southerners were so happy that a southerner not from Texas would become President for the first time since the Civil War. Unfortunately for Carter and the Democrats, four years later the novelty of having a southerner as president wore off, and southerners voted overwhelmingly for Reagan.

by Zzyzzy 2008-05-08 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Race baiting or not, once again she is not going after issues, or trying to promote herself, she is trying to alienate voters against Obama.

That is the problem. Going after him on issues won't hurt him against McSame, but she is trying to alienate voters against him, and that could last.

When I observe Hillary going after voters instead of her opponent and trying to alienate voters against Obama, it makes me feel worried and frustrated, because I value an honest discussion between the people. Therefore I would request that Hillary and her supporters stop alienating voters against Obama with the elitist argument, the he can't win white votes argument and such because that will just hurt all of our chances in November.

by alectimmerman 2008-05-08 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

His percentages with white, working class voters has been increasing, not decreasing.

by Covin 2008-05-08 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Hillary's only argument is that white America will not vote for a black man. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. She can talk about electability all she wants but it's pretty clear what she is getting at. The fact the Obama can't close the deal with southern rednecks. Oops, mispoke.

by cherrygarcia 2008-05-08 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Jerome, I voted for Senator Clinton in my primary, but I am able to admit that her wording was poor.  

by deepee 2008-05-08 07:37AM | 0 recs
Limbaugh sez...

"Barack Obama has shown he cannot get the votes Democrats need to win - blue-collar, working class people," Limbaugh also said. "He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that." 8/05/08/limbaugh-comes-out-for-obama/

by Nobama 2008-05-08 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Limbaugh sez...

We all know he is one of the greatest progressive voices of our generation. /snark

I can't believe you are actually quoting the tool on this blog.

by cherrygarcia 2008-05-08 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Limbaugh sez...

You are right.  Limbaugh is no idiot.  He knows that the only way his party wins is by splitting our party.  (Cause registered democrats way outnumber repubs this cycle)

So OF COURSE he is saying anything he can to split and scare people.  In fact he will say anything he can to do so.  Why else do you think he gets paid 30$million/yr.

His argument right there is Clinton's exact argument.  It is what they are all saying and it is bullshit.

Who was the last Democratic president?  Clinton.  He was young then... check out his demographics that voted for him.  Infact he even had a higher percentage of young voters then Obama has.

As far as the working class vote goes... unless the average person has an epiphany they are going to vote for whomever scares them the least.  (Most often it is republican anyways.)  

If they and we and Jerome continue to propigate this "us against them" (black/white) theme that he "cant" win the general, of course Clinton will get the votes of those that are scared into believing it.

Do you believe it?  Thats what matters.

by herenow 2008-05-08 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

It's sad. This primary has made me lose so much respect for Jerome.

by clevelaw05 2008-05-08 07:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

"It's sad. This primary has made me lose so much respect for Jerome".

But it his job to keep this site alive and interesting, which he does with bells on.

It is our humble job to point out when he gets things wrong - and he has been much wronger than on Hillary and her gas tax holiday :-)

As has been noted by the USA Today election blog:
Update at 10:55 a.m. ET: Jerome Armstrong at the liberal thinks Clinton's comments were benign as far as race goes, but many of the commenters at his site apparently disagree > 8/05/whats-new-4.html

(blog shall eat blog)

by My Ob 2008-05-08 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Perhaps there are aspects to the context I am missing but I have a hard time seeing facts as racially charged.

Is it a fact that Sen. Obama's support among downscale white voters has been in decline?  Yes or no?  It is an empirical and not an ideological or political question.

Now, why that is happening may be racial politics if the cause is somehow related to her or his actions, but that is a separate question from describing the facts as we know them.  And if true whether the pattern would hold in the GE is an important and distinct question.

But the facts seem to suggest his support among the group is declining overall, though it seems to have improved marginally in Indiana relative to OH and PA.

by Trond Jacobsen 2008-05-08 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

the phrase she used and which is getting all the attention here is
"working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"

is this 3 categories, or one? Either way, it's either stupid or appalling.

by ianrsuk 2008-05-08 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

I cant even believe she would make this argument.  Seriously, I saw her on TV yesterday stating that because she gets the "hard-working" white vote... it makes her more electable in the general.


That would be true if the size of the parties were static and the same.  Cross-over appeal to the "hard-working" white middle class vote (that is most often republican as shown by her results in Indiana that showed 24% of her vote was republican voters) would obviously make a difference if both parties were the same size.

But they are not.

Having appeal to republican voters in a DEMOCRATIC primary really means nothing... the general is 8 months away!  It definitely does NOT make you more electable.  Registered Democrats outnumber republicans by a WIDE margin.  And most indipendents are also leaning democratic.  In fact, the ONLY way the republicans have a chance is by splitting the democratic vote.

So why the hell are we concerned at all with who republican voters are going to vote for.  Seriously, it means nothing at this point.  

The candidate that is the most electable is the one that inspires the most votes.  Period.

by herenow 2008-05-08 07:47AM | 0 recs
Interesting commentary...

This diarist is revealing the very disturbing and patently false spin that the MSM has attempted. Why leave a rhetorical question at the end regarding Obama among various white demographics? Why not post the exit polls from OH to PA to IN? Or better - why not post favorability ratings among white and african-american democrats since Jan 2008? Why? Because these will show that Senator Obama has in fact continnued to build a coalition AND is viewed more favorably among democrats now then he was 2/3 months ago. Clinton....not so much.

All those who are blindly letting this diarist and others create a narrative for you, should read the post linked here.

Clinton's comments (whether her own words or putting the AP in her own words) were calculated and I think we will see potentially destructive to her campaign. If you open your eyes and look around - you will see the Hillary Clinton has decided to feed the MSM obsession and also to further divide the democratic party.

by Newcomer 2008-05-08 07:48AM | 0 recs

very good retort to what Jerome posted...

by Student Guy 2008-05-08 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

She got to the top of Drudge. Maybe she just needs the free publicity seeing that she is broke.

by cherrygarcia 2008-05-08 07:54AM | 0 recs
In a Word

No. I'm going to leave out Nevada since it's a caucus, and South Carolina because there were three candidates.

AZ -15
CA -1
CT -1
DE -16
MA -18
MO -18
NJ -25
MD -10
WI +9
OH -30
PA -26
IN -20

AL -47
GA -10
TN -41
OK -27
VA +5
LA -28
MS -44
NC -24

You cannot say that his white performance has been steadily decreasing. You cannot even say that it has been steadily decreasing since March 4th.

by niq 2008-05-08 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: In a Word

Thanks for doing the work on this.  Maybe Jerome could do some scatterplots.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: In a Word

Update the diary, Jerome, it'd be the classy thing to do...

by clad 2008-05-08 08:42AM | 0 recs
you forgot... only include the "states that matter".

and I don't know why Hillary cares about winning Indiana.  After all, it is one of the states that didn't matter in her book until after she won it.  But, I guess, since she almost lost it, it doesn't matter again.

by d 2008-05-08 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Obama in the House: A Clinton super gets an autograph

I think you call this "wavering."

Politico's Amie Parnes e-mails from Obama's visit to the House floor, where he was mobbed instantly.

New York Rep. Yvette Clarke, in theory a Clinton superdelegate, asked him to autograph the cover of today's New York Daily News, with the headling "It's His Party."

Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Clinton supporter from Florida, gave him a big hug. Even Republicans were star-struck. Ileana Ros Lehtinen of Florida crossed the aisle to say hello and brought three children -- in town for a school safety patrol trip -- with her. 508/Obama_in_the_House_A_Clinton_super_g ets_an_autograph.html

by politicsmatters 2008-05-08 07:54AM | 0 recs
Keep digging,

but you'll never get Hillary out of the hole she's put herself in.

But then, what's she got to lose by going completely Racist/Elitist Republican -- 6% of the African American and 20% of the educated votes?

In her last throes Hillary is relying on the base -- uneducated, bitter, and old,  white people -- that has gotten her where she already is.

Isn't the definition of "stupidity" doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

by Kobi 2008-05-08 07:59AM | 0 recs
what good does this do?

It is certainly the case that what Hillary said was true, the question is why she said it. Clearly, she meant to point out that Obama was not a viable candidate - as Ed Koch said earlier today, and she has implied many, many times. There was a time in which comments that regarded Obama as a non-viable candidate were fair game coming from Clinton, but that time ended somewhere between Iowa and March 4th. As soon as it became more likely than not that Obama would be the nominee, Clinton should hqve put the party above herself and not engage in these kinds of potentially divisive attacks.

Given that Obama is the de facto nominee - something Kos, Tad Devine, Chuck Todd, Tim Russert, Harold Ford, Matt Drudge, and the gang at the Weekly Standard all agree on - I dont see how this kind of thing is useful or acceptable.

Seriously Jerome, what do you hope to accomplish in this?

by Ozymandias 2008-05-08 07:59AM | 0 recs
Here's my issue

You come out with this front page post about how crazy the comments are for jumping on this statement.

You compare it to the "typical white person" statement and say that both are not that big of a deal.

Okay, but there have been diary after diary on the recommended list harping on the Obama comment.  Now people, just today, respond to the clinton comment and you immediatley have a post "tst tst" them.  I might have missed it, but I never saw any of them same response with the previous issue.  If they are comparable, why the quick reaction to and complete neglect of the other.

by labor nrrd 2008-05-08 08:00AM | 0 recs
"He can't win because he's A-A"

This is pretty much where all this "Obama can't seem to connect with working class white voters" is tiptoeing towards.  I think the Clintons think Obama can't win because they think too many white voters will not vote for an African-American candidate, no matter who it is.  However pragmatic or accurate the argument may or may not be, it is not only a divisive argument but a morally bankrupt one, which is why they don't articulate it explicitly.  

by megaplayboy 2008-05-08 08:02AM | 0 recs
When will the blatant racism end on MyDD?

Diaries like this put a stain on the blogosphere and on all progressives. That Jerome has gone down this road is deeply disturbing. That he is obviously unaware of what he is doing makes it all the more chilling.

Jerome, please educate yourself about race in America. The narrative that you have played into here has a LONG history in the U.S. going back, at least, to the 19th century. Every "frame," and every discussion of "white working class voters" in relation to people of color enters into this previously existing discourse and only perpetuates race.

You are "making," speaking about and seeing, "race" in this diary. In particular, you are entering into the discourse of "whiteness." This is precisely how the hierarchy of race in the U.S. was created.

It's too much to hope that you would read a book, so I am recommending a good documentary. "Race: The Power of an Illusion" (produced by a team of academics and PBS). It's easily accessible. To "unmake" the power of race, you have to understand how it was made. If you don't, if we dont, we will all simply perpetuate and repeat it. And this is what you are doing here.

Please educate yourself. You have a voice with this blog. It is your responsibility to make sure that voice is educated. This is information that we know. This isn't some abstract debate. We know the history of this discourse, we know what the effect of it has been. Teach yourself. You're obviously capable of doing so.

by DrPolitics 2008-05-08 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: When will the blatant racism end on MyDD?

Oh, for God's sake, get off your pious high horse, you posturing ass.

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

I am new here on myDD and was told that it had a Clinton bias but this post is down right ridiculous.    No balance of facts, no analysis, no counterpoint might as well be a propaganda forum for Hillary.

by montana36 2008-05-08 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

I have read jerome for years and its never been this bad. hes really got something going for hillary.

I am sorry but I must wonder aloud if myDD is being funded by the Clinton campaign through the openID foundation as a special purpose entity transaction.

I have seen things like this happen at myDD this year. Does anyone remember the Edwards mania.
Joe Trippi may have decided that he can offer to a candidate a chance to change the blogosphere into a shill forum by getting chain-recommends on diaries and tipping off the blog owners from underneath the table.

I would not make this statement lightly except to note that the Hillary-ism went back up again immediately after the Clintons infused 6.4 million of their own money back into the campaign.

I would be worried about taking money from their campaign at this point... if it were me.
I am not making an accusation just a conjecture.

by Trey Rentz 2008-05-08 08:35AM | 0 recs
So much for letting Hillary have a graceful exit

All the talking heads were saying that people were giving her space to make a graceful exit from the campaign on her own terms.  The caveat was that it was recognized that she should stop the vitriolic attacks that could only weaken the party's chances in Nov.  

Using a line like , "hard-working Americans, white Americans"  (which sound like it is coming out of the mouth of someone wearing a bedsheet).  Crosses that line.  Isn't the GOP the ones that are supposed to divide us by race for their own ends.  

How can anyone justify phrases that appeal to the worst part of us.  If the supers want to end this charade they have to start acting now.

by xenontab 2008-05-08 08:23AM | 0 recs
I do hope we can get past this.

From my point of view, the reason Hillary's remark yesterday was taken as race baiting was that Obama has many, many working class, white supporters. Her comment dismisses us while implying African Americans are voting based on identity, which isn't very smart. At the outset of the contest, Hillary enjoyed tremendous support from the black community. That support has been waning, due in part to these kinds of statements, but more likely because Senator Obama's message is really resonating with this constituency. Clinton's loss of this constituency goes to the question of her electability, not the other way around. I realize racism exists in America and there are those who will not vote for a black person, but I believe those people are a small minority, and many of them will come around once they get to know our candidate.

by grasshopper 2008-05-08 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I do hope we can get past this.

The claim that Obama is unelectable because he is not carrying the 'white' vote completely ignores the fact that most of these primaries are closed primaries, so only registered democrats can vote. Is she claiming 'white' registered democrats, given the past 8 years of republican failure, the failing economy, the war in Iraq will actually NOT vote for Obama? That they would rather vote for McCain? Will women who have supported her suddenly think sending more of soldiers to die in Iraq and Roe v. Wade being overturned won't be so bad so they'll vote McCain?

by montana36 2008-05-08 08:58AM | 0 recs
No .

Again, no.
Obama's stats and demographics are rising in 8 out of 10 categories.

The stats are on another, more objective - and lately - more interesting. blog.

by Trey Rentz 2008-05-08 08:31AM | 0 recs
whilie it may be possible that she has....

...a broader base with general the population, she seems to be overlooking the fact that she does not have a broader base amongst those who are choosing the nomination for the democratic party.

Black votes don't count less than white votes;  we aren't operating under a 3/5ths law here.

If she wants to start another political party of her own, she is fully entitled to do that.

by d 2008-05-08 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: whilie it may be possible that she has....

She doesn't have a broader base.  That's a myth.  She'd got the highest negatives of any politician ever to run for President.  The Republican Party understands that and they have their robots like Limbaugh working for her specifically because of this.  And Jerome and the bunch here are trying to assist the Republicans in picking our candidate.  

Here's a novel idea...  How about we pick the candidate who wins the election based on the rules established before the votes started to count?  Is that too much to ask?

by crackerdog 2008-05-08 08:53AM | 0 recs

it has been painfully obvious for the last two months that that is just too much to ask.

by d 2008-05-08 09:26AM | 0 recs

    another problem with Clinton's comments is her basic insinuation that hardly any of Obama's supporters work for a living.

   Most college students are in serious debt when they graduate. African Americans are certainly part of the working class. The union members that support Obama are part of the working class.

   Her comments insinuate that his supporters are not hardworking...which is blatantly insulting.

   The comments were not racial in nature...and the more sensitive Obama people should understand that. Doesn't change the fact that they were insulting to Obama supporters. They work too. It's not just liberal elites that support him (probably the funniest, dumbest excuse the Clintonites have yet to come up with).

by southernman 2008-05-08 08:33AM | 0 recs
The comments were not racial in nature...

"Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans..."

Nothing racial there?

by Kobi 2008-05-08 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: The comments were not racial in nature...

  No. It's perfectly fair to say that Obama is struggling to gain white votes.

 It's not fair to say that he can't win the votes of hard-working people. It's the same crap that Jerome has been spoon-fed for months by Camp Hillary, that Obama and his supporters are elitist.

 It's pure goddamn garbage...but it's the last excuse they have, so they'll cling to it.

by southernman 2008-05-08 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The comments were not racial in nature...

You're overlooking the clear implication on her part that black people aren't "hard working Americans."

Never mind the part that "whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me," implies whites who don't support her are "elites."

But the bottom line is that dividng Democrats into warring demographics is what Republicans and their corporate media do, not what Democrats should do.

by Kobi 2008-05-08 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: The comments were not racial in nature...

   I'm not overlooking it, I'm simply not limiting the comment to blacks.

   She's saying that NONE of Obama's supporters are hardworking...that includes blacks, whites, Latinos, everyone.

   She's saying we're all rich and lazy.

   If that's the case, then I'm sure Hillary wouldn't mind paying back my student loans.

by southernman 2008-05-08 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: The comments were not racial in nature...

I've never  been one to argue about how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. Point ceded.

by Kobi 2008-05-08 12:11PM | 0 recs
When you say "working"

You are really saying "less educated". The category has more to do with education level than it has to do with employment.

by wanderindiana 2008-05-08 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

There is no such thing as an "Obamabot."

This is spin at its finest.

It is Senator Clinton's supporters that are acting like out-of-control machines: running on autopilot, acting irrationally, ignoring facts, and invoking all kinds of special counting methods that do not jibe with the facts on the ground, under which their candidate is ahead.  (I know, robots don't have emotions.  Kind of a mixed metaphor there.)

The Obama supporters are the rational, clear-eyed ones.  If the situation were reversed, I'd like to think that Obama supporters would have the dignity to avoid the cry-baby whining and fantasyland story telling that Clinton advocates all over the country are dealing in.  But who knows, we are only human also, and perhaps we could slink to such levels too, if the numbers were reversed.

But they aren't.  And Clinton boosters are the ones that acting in this childish manner.  Now stop it, and grow up.

by Reluctantpopstar 2008-05-08 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

If people take her to mean something nasty that is a problem and I think that she could have chosen her words more carefully. That doesn't mean, however, that it is a good idea for some people to ignore what is a clear problem about the structure of Obama's coalition and who it leaves out and turn discussion of it into taboo subject.  I am also fed up of the implication that the reason why white voters, of whatever class,  who are not voting for Obama are doing so because they are closet racists. There is a perfectly good class-based and generational-based explanation why Obama's hope rhetoric and inexperience won't appeal to certain kinds of people, and indeed why  they might react negatively to the cult of his candidacy in sections of the media. It really is not going to help persuading these voters to turn out for Obama in November by insinuating that they are racists and that the candidate they have supported in large numbers is appealing to them on the basis of race.  Unity doesn't lie down this road.

by Boz 2008-05-08 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Jerome, are you going to be making excuses for the Republicans when they "accidentally" make this kind of comment in the fall?

I followed MyDD a lot in the 2004 Pres election, thought the coverage back then was outstanding; been away since and returned to find a lot of the commentators I respected like Bowers and Stoller departed and Armstrong apparently intent on turning it into a propaganda machine for the losing primary candidate.

Come on man, what the hell is the point at this late stage, when it's clear that she's lost? Isn't it about time you looked maybe 2 or 3 weeks ahead and ask yourself why you are still aiming broadsides in every other diary you write at the man who is undoubtedly going to be the party nominee and will need all the help he can get from the liberal blogosphere?

I don't expect committed supporters of HRC like alegre to change their tone, but given your leadership position isn't it time you recognised the writing on the wall and started to modify your approach accordingly? It's going to be pretty funny seeing how you write your pro-Obama pieces in September and October after everything you've written in the spring - or are you simply going to take a long holiday in the run-up to the election?

by al1 2008-05-08 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

There was a dairy here last night, about an incident at a Clinton rally, where a dumb-ass college student waved an Obama plackard and heckled Senator Clinton and Chelsea.

Well, from the feigned outrage of the Clinton supporters here, you would have thought Barack literally sent the kid out personally, bought him a plane ticket?

This is something "the candidate herself" said.

You Clinton folks went apoplectic about "bitter-gate"

"Brush-off gate" had, what, 30 diaries?

But, Jerome just shrugs this off.

And, I don't see any of the usual Clinton stalwarts, Little Otter, Tereasa, KnowVox weighing in, but I can guess their take?

Has anyone check the other blogs?  

Senator Clinton is getting pilloried for this?

You all DEMAND an Apology from Senator Obama, when some dumbass College student heckles or Or
Randi Rhodes shoves her entire leg down her throat in a comedy act?

But, the loudest Dog Whistle Since The Big Dog compared Obama to Jesse in SC?

She was just stating a fact?

I get the Clinton supporters are hurting, and angry, but you are all getting really tone deaf if you can't see how this plays?

Do you think Jim Clayburn, John Conners and the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus thought Hillary threw in the Key Phrase


By accident?

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-08 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

The statement implies that if you are a working class (white) American your are not somehow a Real American or a True American.

In other words, what Bush and Rove tried to cram down our throats for 6 god-damn years.

I look at it as more GOP style anti-intellectualism.

by MNPundit 2008-05-08 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

If Obama looses to McCain, the world will know that America is still a racist country.

by nzubechukwu 2008-05-08 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

They know it now, for God's sakes. They are not as naive as you.

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 12:26PM | 0 recs
well like it or not

people are making a big deal about this comment in lots of places on the web, mainstream media.  i understand what she was trying to say and I don't take real offense but it's just that she needed to say what she was saying delicately and she absolutely  did not.  This will probably require an apology.

I wasn't mad at Obama for bittergate because I thought he was right - but it became clear that as a presidential candidate you can't talk like you are a political analyst.  Clinton broke that rule.  

i'm really more upset that Clinton is running her campaign still pointing out Obama's negatives - as opposed to a Huckabee-esque running on her positives.  that is disappointing.  I would guess that Obama is done pointing out Clinton's mistakes at this point.

by ab03 2008-05-08 10:02AM | 0 recs
Deliberate pitch - low and away.

Either she was tired and let slip what Lanny was telling her at 3am, or it's designed the same way Rivera pitches in the 9th.    If the opponent gets a piece of that nasty pitch, it'll be on the ground, easy to field, and thanks for playing.

Race-baiting isn't racism, as far as we know: its strategery.

Clinton camp makes a 'gaffe'
Obama camp calls them on it
Clinton camp tells of Obama camp's polarizing tendencies.
Press picks up the last comment made, Obama gets spanked.

So protect the plate, but try for the walk on this one.

I'll stop torturing this bad analogy now.

by drowsy 2008-05-08 10:35AM | 0 recs
"Race-baiting is a strategy"

yes, an immoral strategy.  Or are you a Rethuglican?  They seem to justify anything that gives them an advantage, too.

by NM Ward Chair 2008-05-08 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: "Race-baiting is a strategy"

You're 100% right, on the immoral biz.   I didn't say I liked it, I'm just calling it what it is.  You don't have to be a racist to take advantage of the racism in others, you just have to have different moral standards.

Another ex: Street money is a strategy too, one I'm not a fan of.

by drowsy 2008-05-14 09:20AM | 0 recs
by TheNewMexican 2008-05-08 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Hillary is now totally racist in her behavior and is no less a racist than George Wallace.  Stop destorying the Democratic Party for your own egomanic purpuses.

by ajleiker 2008-05-08 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Hillary is now totally racist in her behavior and is no less a racist than George Wallace.  Stop destorying the Democratic Party for your own egomanic purpuses.

by ajleiker 2008-05-08 01:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Working Americans come in all colors

Egomanic? Does this mean posting the same message twice?

by doyenne49 2008-05-08 01:47PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads