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

So, what's your point?  

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

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Now...is it a gaffe because we make it a gaffe? Or is it actually a gaffe? I'd say the latter.

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"

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.

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

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.

Right?

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.

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.

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.  

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.

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.  

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Jerome,

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.

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.  

Regardless of who you support, this is cool:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/05.0 8.08%20DNC%20MEMO.pdf

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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. )

BTW, David Bonior's endorsing Obama today.

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?

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

"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."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/05/08/limbaugh-comes-out-for-obama/

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

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.

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.

B.S.

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.

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.

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1144

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.

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

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.

Obama in the House: A Clinton super gets an autograph

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.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0 508/Obama_in_the_House_A_Clinton_super_g ets_an_autograph.html

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?

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?

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

...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.

    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).

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

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.

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.

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?

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

"HARD WORKING"

By accident?

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.

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

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.

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.

Whatever...

http://electioninspection.wordpress.com/ 2008/05/08/more-hackery-from-jerome-arms trong/

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.

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.