I have said time and time again that Hillary Clinton will do or say anything to win the presidency. Including race baiting. Don’t believe me, well can you tell me who, “hard-working Americans, white Americans” are?
She will do anything. I’m just waiting for the July surprise when the Clinton campaign goes nuclear. You ain’t seen nothing yet.
Please share widely!
she had to qualify ‘working-class’ with “white” because black working-class americans are def.not supporting her
Ok, I am kind of getting sick and tired of the way White working class people are portrayed. Were the ones without any representation in this country and were the ones who are being killed economically by high taxes, housing costs, outsourcing, illegal aliens, gas prices and inflation. Please tell me why a white working class person should somehow feel bad for supporting a candidate who actually seems to talk about our issues. Like I said before, the white working class feel betrayed. If you want our vote stop making us out to be a bunch of KKK, gun toting, religious zealots.
<
p>Were the ones who made America what it is and were the ones who are being left behind. I want a Democrat in the White House as much as anyone but I can guarantee that rich white people talking the trash about us are turning us off to Obama and on to someone else. Try walking in our shoes once in a while. You might see how hard it is to be a white, blue collar person in America. Everything seems to be your fault and no one is there protecting you. My case in point is the article in the Herald today about a program that gives low income minorities lower mortgages. Why is it they get lower mortgages considering there are more low income white people in this country then anything. Maybe if the Obama crowd tried to unite as apposed to divide, just maybe we might have some real change.
That was an amazing post to read because it just flushed out so many of the fears and misconceptions the white middle class is walking around with.
<
p>No representation? How do you mean? You mean with all the black and latino representatives in Congress (how many are there again)? Or do you mean with the largely wealthy political elite?
<
p>Yes, you are getting killed with taxes and gas prices, but not because you’re white, but because you’re middle class.
<
p>And who is the “we” that made this country what it is?
<
p>And I’m sure you didn’t rea THIS in the Herald, but in several urban areas across the country over the past few years, African American homeowners in the were nearly three times more likely to get “high-cost” loans than their white and Asian counterparts. Latinos were two times more likely to get high-cost loans than whites and Asians.
Every body caters to you people. Thats why Dubya won, thats why Clinton won, by catering to the one demographic that truly encapsulates the lowest common denominator in our country-Joe six pack.
<
p>These are the people that if you stay in a bar long enough think a whitty joke is Ill kill the next f-g that walks into this bar. or if your outside of the north ill kill the next n—-r that walks in. Indiana is full of these people, sadly my family has a few of these people, and they have some of the dumbest ideas on the planet, no understanding of how economics work, are jingoistic beyond belief when it comes to foreign policy, and completely ignorant of history. They do not realize that yes the US has done many evil things in the past.
<
p>They expect the government to take care of them when their sick, disabled, or old but dont want to pay taxes for anything-especially if it helps people poorer or browner then them. they love to idolize the self made man, but these people stay in the gutter since they never bother to educate themselves and view intelligence as weakness. These are the same people that claim to be Christian yet knock up their girlfriends, get shotgun weddings, and then vote to make sure their lesbian daughter can never enjoy an actual loving marriage (true story close friend had that happen).
<
p>These are the same people who don’t realize that rich mostly white men have dominated this country and yet they dont resent those in power they resent those they should have common ground with-illegal immigrants, black people, single mothers.
<
p>They want gas prices to be low but definitely dont make the connection that maybe we should stop driving 4 by 4s and actually conserve. They vote against overrides and then wonder why the libraries close down. They vote to get rid of the income tax and then complain that the potholes arent fixed. They want government to help them and only them and no one else and they never want to actually pay for it.
<
p>I am sick and tired of these people easily swayed by fear or emotion and never acutally looking at facts or making intelligent decisions. I would rather win without them then with win them since winning with them means another four years of George Bush like governance since we would be inheriting his coalition of ignorant fools.
of the glaring weakness of the Obama campaign, above.
And jconway forgets an important option:
<
p>
<
p>With an attitude like that, neither of those scenarios will be realized in November. The jconways of the Obama campaign (and there are plenty of them) are its Achilles heel. Obama cannot win if he cannot bring in the voters to whom jconway apparently finds himself so superior.
While jconway has been obnoxious, I don’t think he in any way represents typical Obama supporters and you really have no reason at all to claim there are “plenty” of others like him. Please don’t forget that BMG and its ilk are occupy only tiny niches in the internet political community so to generalize based on postings here would be foolish. The fact is that every campaign has its overzealous partisans so this is no more Obama’s “Achille’s Heel” than it is McCain’s or Clinton’s.
I think jc is in a VERY small group (if not totally unique in this outlook) that can be characterized by the vitriol toward lower class whites. Part of the challenge of the democratic party in general is to help EVERYONE who is not a part of the leisure class realize where their economic interests lie.
if you’re sick and tired, jconway. You’ve made one broad and sweeping classist and stereostypical statement after another about “the working class” and it’s just freaking obnoxious now. Is this a progressive value?
<
p>I think it’s rather curious that you see so much ignorance in everybody else, but you and your own vicious rantings. It’s also curious that “you’d rather win without “them”” when it has yet to be demonstrated whether you can win anything at all.
Whish goes right back to the arguement—-the “Elites” know what is best for us. Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Muchigan, UC berkely. Everyone who graduates from these colleges is immediately qualified to to tell me how to live my life. Tell me what I should be thinking. Tell me what I may or may not speak. Tell me how much taxes I must pay for their pet projects etc. That is the Obama party and his minions and sycophants.
<
p>Personally, I am waiting for the political messiah who is at least a middle roader or slightly conservative. Hell, I would settle for someone who just has plain ole common sense and will keep their hands out of my pockets.
That argument is a flimsy veil to disguise that the Republicans are a wholly owned subsidiary of the wealthy power elite. It's not any Harvard prof that is dictating how you live your life, it is the market conditions set up by conservatives that consistently act on behalf of the wealthiest .0001% of Americans.
You want to be ruled by an elite? You have been living it.
How does it feel?
I find it rather amusing that I am now called a liberal elitist by a group founded by bloggers who are arguably liberal elitists themselves. i find it amusing that I have been called a conservative Democrat, a Reagan democrat, and a DINO by many on this blog and yet many of the very liberal Clintonites who dislike my conservative position on abortion (id say its liberal since its pro human rights and anti eugenics but I digress), defense issues, foreign policy, and economics are now defending Clinton southern strategy and attacking me as an out of touch liberal elitist from Cambridge.
<
p>My parents are white working class people I do not resent the class as a whole, I resent the divide and conquer strategy Clinton is now using to pit white against black, working man vs elitist, etc. when we should all be in this together. To divide the party up into competing demographics so the media can say which side won is ridiculous. We will lose to McCain if she keeps this up.
<
p>Obamas agenda has plenty of goodies for working class people, it has plenty of thigns you’d like MCRD. He supports making it tough to get across the border and he really cracks down on keeping illegals out but has a compassionate policy for those that are here now. He supports a much tougher policy against Afghanistan, Pakistan, and is pretty much a realist who defends Americas interests. Are interests were never in Iraq and he wants to get out of there-thats a sensible foreign policy move. He is fairly pro law enforcement. He supports sensible free trade policies but also has a few things protectionists like.
<
p>All in all this is not a radical guy, Obama is a middle of the roader which is why I like him. It seems that on BMG all the argula eaters dislike Obama, liked Edwards, and are now vaguely for Clinton with a few exceptions. So its all frankly amusing how much hatred is spewed against me from so many different wings of the political spectrum. i guess its my punishment for thinking critically and independently.
There is nothing wrong with being white and working class. Your definitely right about that. And I don’t think anybody here has a problem with Clinton appealing to the interests of white, working class voters. The problem, in this case, is that she seemingly equated “hard-working” with “white”. I think you would agree that there can be hard-working people of any race. Perhaps she just expressed herself poorly — though her campaign and its surrogates have a history of subtle and not-so-subtle racially-divisive statements.
<
p>And I agree with you that very few people are really representing working class whites. But that goes for the working and middle class of any color. Non-wealthy people have very little influence in Washington, regardless of their race. I disagree that working class whites have it worse than working class blacks, but why compete? People in power would like to see working class people blame one another for their problems, so as to keep the focus off themselves.
There is no history of this and, especially if you are a Democrat, shame on you. I am so tired of people repeating this dribble as if it is true. It is not. (Must be why you have no links to support your statement.) As for what she said about working class white people supporting her, that is stating a fact.
No link needed.
And Jessie Jaskson, himself, said he was not offended at all by what President Clinton stated about his win in South Carolina. BTW, what President Clinton stated about Jessie Jackson’s win in South Carolina was a historical fact. Just because Obama supporters call something racist does not mean it is, and President Clinton’s statement was not racist. Makes one wonder about the Obama tactics.
pointed to Bill’s race clumsy remarks.
<
p>I don’t think Bill or Hillary are racists, but these matters require nuance. You likely won’t agree, but I think Obama has played the game of “just words” in a much more Presidential way.
<
p>The “bitter” remarks stand out for when Barack lost his footing.
Yes, I’m a Democrat, and that’s precisely why I’m upset at the tone of her campaign. You asked for links, so here’s one example: Geraldine Ferraro’s comments that were the impetus for her stepping down from the Clinton campaign.
Because over 90% of African Americans voters voted for him in those states. Is that not true?
First off, my comment was about the statements of Geraldine Ferraro, a member of the Clinton campaign. What she said was stupid and racially divisive. Do you disagree?
<
p>Your reply wasn’t a response to the substance of my comment, but I’ll attempt to address it anyway. Yes, it is true that support from African Americans was crucial in Obama’s winning southern states. Duh.
<
p>It is also true that Clinton’s support among white Americans has been crucial to her wins. The problem wasn’t her stating that fact, but that her words seemingly equated white Americans with those that are “hard-working”. It could have been clumsy speaking, but it sounded very much like the racial code words we’ve heard from the right-wing in years past. If it was an honest mistake, than I think an apology is in order.
<
p>You can pretend to be ignorant of this history and claim that her words carry no more weight than a statement of fact. Some black Americans would disagree.
die by the s(nl)word
At least, no official endorsement:
<
p>House of Reps: Olver, Tierney, Tsongas, Markey
DNC: Mass Dems Vice-Chair Debra Kozikowsi, James Roosevelt, Jr
<
p>Keep in mind Roosevelt is the DNC Rules expert, and any endorsement before the convention would be a bad thing. If he comes out for Obama, any rulings on MI/FL is rather suspect. Meanwhile Kozikowsi has been open to arguments from either side, including a thread on “the field”.
<
p>source
This wikipedia page is pretty cool because it has sortable tables. You can isolate state, uncommitted, etc.
<
p>Every source seems to have different numbers and I’ve yet to see any MSM source reveal the details under their numbers. ABC now claims that Obama has moved ahead of Clinton in the super count, 267-265.
so it’s ok for everyone to comment on how obama has 99.9% of the entire black vote and 99.9% of the “educated” white vote, but it’s not ok for clinton to say she has most of the working-class white vote? utterly ridiculous.
<
p>and as for the “hard-working” bit – did you expect her to diss her most steady constituency by calling them welfare queens and slackers? gimme a break!
<
p>bmg has slipped to a new low – it will highlight the swill of redmass escapees in order to trash a prominent dem. nice going!
If she had just said “among working-class white Americans”, she would have been fine.
<
p>But she said “among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans,” which is open to a different interpretation.
<
p>This is the sort of stupid side issue that has plagued this race, but Hillary didn’t do herself any favors here.
but this could easily be a case of tactless citing of exit polling data
But it was phrased in a way that is open to other interpretations.
<
p>Here’s a pretty good commentary on the topic.
even if it is the wrong interpretation or a ridiculous interpretation. It does not make the interpretation fact.
1. Not all utterances are equally open to misinterpretation. You have to really stretch to misinterpret “I really enjoy eating an occasional ice cream sandwich”. It’s less of a stretch with “among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans”.
<
p>2. Perception is reality for the perceiving party. If you say something that is likely to be misinterpreted, you have to deal with peoples’ interpretations, whether they are correct or false. As such, Hillary’s gaffe has consequences.
<
p>But enough of that. We need to start coming together. Hillary backers should think about moving from denial and anger to bargaining, testing, and acceptance. Obama supporters need to stop bashing Hillary and her backers (I’m stopping now) and recognize that Hillary’s supporters are good people that really aren’t all that different from us. And that Hillary has demonstrated what it means to be tough, resolute, and persistent.
Syphax – I think you make some great points, but I also think that there’s one standard for Hillary and quite another for just about everyone else. The media has treated Hillary shamefully, and has essentially greased the skids. I find it incredible that one candidate and his supporters can talk specifics about demographs and others are lambasted for it. And the cheapass potshots still go on…with some “fine” progressives actually discussing when the Clinton divorce would happen and thoughtfully suggested a “pool.” We’ve had BMG management front page a lovely piece by a Red Mass patriot, complete with unnecessary vitriol, to further the “in your eye” feeling.
<
p>You’re right, though. We do need to start talking about “coming together.” It’s going to be interesting to see how healing starts when some of Mr. Obama’s supporters are actually suggesting they don’t need Hillary’s supporters, the working class, to win this thing, and would rather win without them.
This actually reminds me of a a question I’ve had about that old Rupert Holmes song, “Escape.” You know how it goes.
<
p>If you like Pina Coladas/
And getting caught in the rain/
If you’re not into yoga/
If you have half a brain
<
p>That last part always bugged me. Is Rupert desparaging people who take part in yoga as brainless? Or is simply having half a brain a prerequisite for dating him, so long as you don’t do yoga?
<
p>Word placement is important here, people.
<
p>Similarly, Clinton would have been better off referring to “working class whites” rather than “hard working Americans, white Americans…”
I’d like to stay sympathetic of Hillary in what appears to be her end game. I do believe her future office chances depend on how she handles this.
<
p>Yet, in the past month and more, I’ve heard steady race baiting. She’s saying, white, white, white. I’m white. Voters who support me are white. White, white, white. White voters like me and I like white voters. If you’re white, vote for me. I’m the only one whom white voters will vote for. White.
<
p>She should have heard it when her hubby pulled that stupid well-even-Jesse-Jackson-won-this-state crap. MSM justifiably called racism on that.
<
p>It’s one thing to point to demographics. However, she’s pretending that if Obama gets the Dem nomination, he’ll be running against both her and McCain in the fall. That’s not the way it works. Framing this like if white voters went for her over Obama in the primary, they’ll sit out or go to the dark side in November is more crap.
<
p>I hope her deck is all out of race cards or that her friends and advisers tell her to stop playing them.
It appears that now, no matter what HRC says, the democratic party are about to throw her under the bus for using tactics that the democratic party has been using for forty years.
<
p>That’st the dog biting the hand that feeds it!
We have two fine contenders for the nomination!
<
p>The media is making much about a schism that doe bot exist!
<
p>The press fawns over Obama and Hillary says anything and they crucify her.
<
p>
Correction. “. . a schism that does not exist!”
<
p>
Sounds like an existential inquiry regarding some kind of robo-Bambi. 😉
Thanks for weighing-in Dave!
<
p>I take “robo-Bambi” as a compliment.
<
p>-> 😉 !
<
p>
“I can ride my bike with no handlebars…”
I was reading a post by Raj 🙂
I miss his posts.
Laurel and Leonidas are right. She’s talking about the fact that white working-class voters have tended to favor her over Obama, and that that’s an important Democratic constituency. Anyone want to disagree with that? Coulda been more artfully phrased … beyond that, doesn’t strike me as anything to write home about.
But the phrasing, with the apparent insinuation that “hard-working” and “white” are synonymous, wasn’t exactly artful.
<
p>The whole ‘broader base’ argument is a crock, but that’s another story. The demographic groups that marginally favor her may be larger, but that hasn’t been enough to let her win (that, and a crappy strategy).
<
p>
Senator Clinton is an excellent candidate and a seasoned politician. In this case she is discussing demographics. Big deal.
<
p>In general, she has much to recommend her. I personally have a grudging admiration for her never say die pugilism, even though I think it is Quixotic and is about to cross the line from the sublime to the ridiculous.
<
p>I hope she stops before then, and I certainly hope she doesn’t try for a rules fight at the Convention, which would be ludicrous.
Most white working class Americans dont believe blacks are hard working, and definitely view Hispanics as lazy. I am mostly basing this on anecdotal evidence from my predominately white working class extended family but I am pretty damn sure polls could confirm this.
<
p>These are the same people who idolized Reagan when he condemned single mothers on welfare, like mine at the time, as welfare queens and cadilliac queens. They believe that Mexicans and Blacks get by because of their race and that they dont actually earn anything they get. Youll hear them say I wouldve had that job but lost it because of affirmitive action or me and my carpenter buddies work twice as hard as those damn lazy sp–s over there.
<
p>To me for her to say hard working, white americans is just as bad as Reagan saying he supported state rights. Its a subtle way of injecting coded language-that those poor hard working whites who never get a shake are always screwed over by those radical reparations seeking blacks and hispanics. People always blame their job losses on illegals or blacks and never on either themselves for being incompetent or just the plain misfortune of having an obsolete profession. People never make the connection that maybe food prices are low because the people that pick the food get paid next to nothing since their illegal, or that Wal Mart is so damn cheap thanks to outsourced goods. Or that having a gun in the home increases the chance you’ll get shot.
<
p>The idea that any white person is this country, especially today, has been victimized in any way is completely ridiculous and her statement, intentional or not, reinforces a good thirty years of the Republican southern strategy and I find it really disheartening that she even came close to it, accidentally or not. Those are words no democrat should say.
…said was an inartful, but accurate assessment of demographics.
<
p>What you have just said smacks of classist, racist clap trap.
<
p>No group of people, including white people, deserves to be painted with such a broad, condescening brush.
<
p>Me thinks tho doth protest too much.
All I am stating his historical fact. If you know anything about political history you will know candidates from Nixon on through G Dubya have used this coded racial language to turn the hard working but ignored white working class against its equally hard working black and latino counterparts to divide and conquer to win votes. From lee atwater through rove this has been their strategy and to deny that Hillary is not using similar language is to deny a crucial and sad chapter in recent US history.
…have got to be kidding me, right?
<
p>
<
p>This is racist claptrap. Dictionary definition. Overbroad, unsupported negative assumptions about an entire group of people, presented as though it is the undeniable, gospel truth. No more need to be said about it.
<
p>And my comments had nothing to do with your take on political history. They had to do with the ease with which you acted like a sloppy racist while criticizing others for the same.
<
p>I think I’ll do just fine by steering clear of your “tutelage”.
Maybe because there is an element of reality in JC’s observations.
<
p>If you want to have a “Who’s the biggest working class person” on this blog, I’m in!
<
p>Clinton has stolen Edwards’ voice. She has never spoken to me or my class.
“Clinton has stolen Edwards' voice. She has never spoken to me or my class.”
I firmly believe that the time for sniping is long past, and I will add only this:
The democratic candidate has always been closer to the interests of me and the class and community in which I live.
Always.
…”element of reality” in stereotypes. They are by definition an innacurate painting of entire groups of people by individuals whose minds are too small to deal with complexity. That there are those individuals who hold sterotypical views of illegal immigrants is doubtless…but they aren’t all white and they aren’t all working class.
<
p>If you can’t put down the big brush that paints entire groups of people with the same negative shade you can’t criticize others for doing the same.
It’s not enough that a sliver more people support/ed Obama in this process, now everyone must be insulted according to the same rubrics as his campaign.
<
p>It’s a common desire for a campaign that barely wins to expect the party to fall directly in line on all matters — saw it in the aftermath of the Deval Patrick campaign, too.
but a loyal Democrat, particularly one who wants to be the leader of the party, will not pit the party’s constituencies against each other, by saying these are mine and those are yours. The Democrats need to be united in order to succeed. She has done this at least twice over the last several weeks. Note her previous dissing of MoveOn and other liberal groups.
Hillary ain’t going out with a whimper. I guarantee you there is a “bombshell” Hillary has and she will use it. Now I don’t know what it is and can only guess, but it will be a doozie and her hands won’t be on it. There will be a June or July surprise. Hillary will try to steal the nomination from Barack. All I can say is pass the popcorn, I’m enjoying the show. Oh and “I told you so, the Clinton’s are power hungry.”
<
p>Finally if Hillary can’t pull this off, what’s the over under on the date divorce papers are served to Bill? Perhaps a pool is in order?
It’s almost as bad as being a Republican.
But not quite.
Put me down for $20-
This is nonsense…but more of the same nonsense we have witnessed over the course of this campaign…no matter what Clinton says, she can’t catch a break from the chorus ready to pounce on every word or even a poorly constructed sentence…
<
p>with only a few weeks to go to the end of this primary season, and the national polls still tottering on margins of error so split down the middle are they…the Obama group (and the DNC) is acting like Obama is leading national polls by double digits so eager are they to remove Clinton from the scene…
<
p>they should be careful what they wish for…
<
p>one thing the long primary season accomplished was to give Obama the chance to let everyone know that he is in fact also willing to say or do anything to get elected…(Clinton did not do that for him and the media refused to vet him in the early states of the campaign)…Obama did that himself. He brought himself right down to earth with his actions and words ….and the party will have to buckle up and live with the consequences.
for her “poorly constructed sentence” and yet you want to bury Obama for his.
Both are humans and unless we want absolutely no spontaneous comments from the candidates, we’ll have to live with it. I say cut them both a little slack in this regard. Neither is a racist or an elitist.
I have never criticized Obama for poorly constructed sentences in non-scripted events and/or remarks he made that were taken out of context…I assume you are refering to his California blue-collar dissing thing…actually, I never commented on that at all…because I thought that whole incident paled in relation to other more important statements he made on the record at scripted events which gave us more insight into his lack of experience and political and personal judgment (less than honest statements on Wright, Resko, Ayers, deceptive health care mailings, juvenile/jr. high-ish comments berating HRC as “Annie Oakley”,etc., etc.)
The bitter-gate, or whatever people want to call it, falls into the exact same category as this latest mis-step from Clinton.
We all know she’s not a racist, but that she does play the race card a bit. This is more of the same from her.
The Hill-bots will get all up in arms about how unfair the media treats Hillary, but none were complaning this loud when she jumped on his back at the debate over the bitter comments.
<
p>Perhaps we should have another debate moderated by someone other than a former Clinton operative. Just to even things up.
Nevermind. Obama is most likely not going to focus on this “distraction” the same way Clinton would if the tables were turned.
..is that GWB is crucified for HIS “poorly constructed sentence(s)”. OK, I said it, now have at me.
Lodger.
<
p>
It’s not that I love the guy…and actually a lot of you folks aren’t that bad either!
You’re not so bad yourself. 🙂 We may be having an intraparty food fight right now…but some of us manage to keep our humor intact. Watch out for the rutabagas, though, those REALLY hurt.
Right now. 🙂
But this is not the time to bring up my candidate, Bob.
A link to the New York Post quoting, of all people, Deb Kozikowski. You might want to go check the Fox network for some more backup documentation. Sheesh.
It was a link to comments made by superdelegates. No arguement was made that requires convincing.
<
p>So the NY Post is a poor media source as most will agree, but does that make the statements lies? Nope.
It seems like its one thing for pundits and pollsters to say candidate A received X% of this demographic and Y% of this demographic.
<
p>It’s seems quite another for the candidates to actually speak out on these demographic trends. Normally it’s left unsaid, it seems rare for campaigns to say, “We’re especially strong on demographic X, our competitors are weak on demographic Y.” But that’s part of the Clinton strategy as we all know to convince the voters that they have a broader (or more important?) base appeal. That’s why this is normally a “left unsaid” topic, it’s awkward (are there more important voters? why do we devalue the highly educated white voter etc?). It’s a little bit ugly too to call it out, but clearly its being done for a purpose.
<
p>The strategy is playing into the Democrats ongoing insecurity about not getting the rural vote (red/blue etc), which I think is somewhat unfounded. The gas tax holiday really hurt Clinton, the polls suggest. Many of those Indiana voters were smart enough to see it as a political move, not a real substantive policy. I think they will be smart enough to assess McCain and Obama (or Clinton) realistically as well.
I think you have hit upon it. Both Hillary and Obama have spent nearly as much time fighting for votes from their base and trying to slice into each other as the primaries and caucuses dragged on that we are finally seeing the other side of the campaign and that is trying to win the super delegates. What Hillary said was certainly a poorly phrased comment what she was trying to get out was another matter and that was a message to the super delegates this is why you need to wait and not commit I can make a case for being a stronger candidate. Simple easy but not made for prime time. The pressure must be tremendous on her to have been caught so flat-footed and tongue-tied.
<
p>Maybe all the more reason to put this campaign out of it’s missery.
<
p>As Usual Just my Opinions
waiting to vote for a women president for the first time in their lives. If only for that reason, the race should continue. Women got the right to vote only 88 years ago. There are still people alive today who were alive before women got the right to vote; some of whom will be voting in West Virginia and Kentucky. We should not underestimate what that means to these women.
<
p>It seems as if Barack Obama has picked up a few more male superdelegates in the past few days. I hope the other superdelegates realize if they force the issue before everyone has a right to vote, then there may be a lot of women who will reconsider whether being a part of the Democratic party is such a great thing.
Have these women heard of it?
There was widespread celebration when Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were sworn in to the SJC.
<
p>But I think a significant point was made here. I don’t think it’s in the interests of the party to pretend that gender isn’t an issue.
<
p>The thing is – women do have a choice. They can stay in a party that pretty much has taken them for granted, they can stay home or they can vote with their feet.
There are far more reasons to vote Democrat than the gender of a potential candidate. Where you rank them is subjective. We know where you stand, but does that mean you’d vote for Condi Rice if she were a candidate?
“As far as I know I have no reason to believe that.”
<
p>Now back to the race baiting discussion already in progress…
And of course there are more reasons than gender to vote Democratic. But presidential elections are not won by the party activists votes and it would be wrong for the Democratic Party to under estimate how Hillary Clinton is being treated now will effect the decisions of large chunks of women voters in November.
Just passing the gems along:
Kennedy: No veep slot for Clinton
By Ben Smith 12:48 PM comments (513)
The guy has like 50.000000001% of the Democratic party behind him. A goodly portion of his most ardent supporters are busy telling the other 49.999999% of the Democratic party that they are ignorant racists. That means he is heading into November with a fraction of John Kerry’s base, and Kerry lost.
<
p>The party is not united. It isn’t somebody’s fault, it is just a fact. It is up to him to unite it, and if he doesn’t he is toast, and that will no one’s fault but Barack Obama’s.
<
p>On the other hand, if he succeeds in cracking the party up, maybe there will be an actual moderate party and I can be something other than an independent again.
Clinton trashes the joint and Obama gets to play the butler?
<
p>And who is the leader of your “moderate” party? Hillary?
This is becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.
<
p>Obama and his supporters adopted the campaign strategy of denouncing Hillary as racist for daring not to bow out in favor of him. When Hillary supporters get a little ticked off at this, it is somehow taken as evidence of racism.
<
p>This neatly sets up a scenario in which it is becoming unlikely that Obama will win in November, despite it being Democrat weather. And then his supporters, having denounced half of the party as racist, will claim that his defeat is evidence of what an evil country we live in.
<
p>We don’t need another president with True Believer supporters. We have one already, and it didn’t work out so well.
I recall the Clinton campaign getting into hot water by spreading the madrassa smear in the lead up to Iowa. Twice!
<
p>Then the racism thing reared its ugly head again before the NH primary when Bill Shaheen resigned after alluding to Obama’s past drug use which was taken as a racist remark.
<
p>This only became worse when Bill thought he could shoot from the hip in SC. He shot himself in the foot and forced Hillary to apologize
<
p>So I would concur with this staement
IF you change the word “denouncing” to “standing up to” and dropped the last BS.
<
p>This works for me:
<
p>PS. The latest stink is over the linking of the words “hard working” and “white” and by inference that blacks are not.
This may by a minor gaffe to you, but it was a blunder at this stage of the game. She certainly demonstarted that she can’t carefully choose her words in a very public setting. Diplomacy mandates that the President be hyper aware of how there words can be perceived. She blew it.
BTW, saying the drug use comment by Bill Shaheen is racist, is racist.
n/t
actions speak louder than words.
throats over the primary. It’s pretty cool to see how far we’ve come as a community. Very few of us Dems have taken EaBo’s bait.
<
p>I think at this stage of the game, Hillary is punch drunk. You can hear it in her worn out voice. Every time I hear her speak, I’m impressed. She’s done her best. If it weren’t for Obama who has the potential for greatness, she’d be the nominee.
<
p>What will happen next? Obama is already giving her space. She’s going to bow out at some point. When she does, he will eulogize. The media will look at her candidacy, I think, with a little respect. United, the Dems will all turn on St. John McCain.
<
p>Mark
is that if there isn’t some unexpectedly decisive result in clinton’s favor from the may 20th primaries, she’ll bow out that night or the next day. it will be graceful and full of heartfelt support for the presumptive nominee. she is too seasoned of a politician, with too much work ahead of her, to take it to the convention just for the sake of taking it to the convention.
Reminds of the parable of Samson when he brings the entire temple down and everyone in it.
“everyone”, by definition, should include me. yet i have no idea what you’re talking about. can you substantiate your claim in any way, shape or form? (quotes from eabo don’t count.)
Why you believe Hillary will wait until after the game is nearly over to use this “nuclear option”
<
p>Why not on February 1st? Or March 1st? Or May 1st?
<
p>You don’t keep your best player on the bench until you’re down 10 with one minute left.
the nuclear option at the beginning of the second half either. If you think you can win without dramatically destroying the other person you try to win that way. When all else is lost if you have a silver bullet or a nuclear option if you will you use it. That is what she is going to do mark my words.
you big powerful democratic insider, i didn’t know you were so all-knowing! can i have your baby?
There is absolutely nothing that Clinton can do at this point to stop Obama or even to hurt him significantly. Her supporters are slipping away by the day and she has no power without them. She is free to ruin her own political career, but I doubt very many will want to link their own political fates with hers if she continues down this path.
<
p>
Hillary’s gaffe may or may not have been accidental (she does sound exhausted in that clip, but she’s also not stupid), but that’s not what galls me the most.
<
p>Anyone remember NAFTA, getting China in the WTO or work-fare? Hillary serving on the board of Walmart and – ya know – not challenging its anti-union doctrine? Being a general champion of the free trade that she now claims to revile? This is what blows my mind. Anyone who claims Obama is somehow more elitest than her is falling for her working-class disguise (class-washing?). She’ll give you a gas tax holiday one minute and send your job to China the next.
what the exit polls say is that the white working class tends to prefer her. check in with them, ask them (be sure to be condescending 😉 why they support a pol who you think has short-sheeted their beds.
<
p>A working class hero is something to be -Lennon
What pisses me off about this is that she is NOT merely stating demographic data.
<
p>Okay were Obama to say I won more black votes that would be both factually accurate and not racist.
<
p>Were Hillary to have merely said I won more votes from white Americans, or I won more working class votes that would also have been both correct and not racist.
<
p>For her to have said I have won the votes of more hard working Americans would be factually incorrect since their is no way to determine how hard working her voters are in any objective sense, but it would not be racist.
<
p>She took the cake though by passing off an inaccurate and frankly racist statement she implied those Americans that did not vote for her and those that are not white are not hard working. Had she paused at all it wouldve been clear. But she did not, and honestly if she was not a Clinton people would be all over her for this. This is probably the most offensive thing shes done yet in this campaign, and to divide the party on class lines and racial lines like she has is an incredibly crass strategy.
<
p>I took her bait and made a classist argument in anger explaining the history that people have ignored and my anger with the attitudes of this demographic. Were I an Obama spokesperson I would have made the campaign look really stupid.
<
p>Listen I want white working class voters to vote Democratic as much as the next man, but I am skeptical that they will be as reliable as all the people Obama has brought into the process and energizes. He energizes our true base, minorities and progressives and reaches out to swing voters like disaffected Republicans and independent moderates. I think given enough time Obama could seal the deal, but Hillary is implying that these white people will not vote for a black candidate and it would be highly cynical of our partys voters to overturn the will of the electorate and annoint her merely because her face might be more palatable to this narrow and in all honesty disloyal bloc of democratic voters.
Let it go. You main point has been solid since you began. Don’t get twisted by the parsing of others. Many people do not post, so don’t feel compelled to parry with the partisans nipping at your heels.
<
p>Things get twisted. Cool your heels and blog another day. Just be you and
<
p>BLOG ON!
You say “He energizes our true base, minorities and progressives and reaches out to swing voters like disaffected Republicans and independent moderates.”
<
p>George McGovern’s victory formula…wow…we know how that turned out…remember that old bumper sticker “Don’t Blame Me, I’m From Massachusetts” ?!
<
p>Clinton started bringing old Reagan Dems back into the fold with a good economy and more moderate policies…I think we are about to watch them slip away once again.
That is not what we need right now.
by “moderate policies”. Just curious.
First off I’ll say that I agree this was probably a simple gaffe of poor wording, possibly implying that only whites are hard working, which the wolves of all stripes are latching onto and tearing at.
<
p>Since when is “white” a dirty word while “african american” is revered? Only the American left could have conjured up such a prejudice.
<
p>On the other hand, I hate Hillary with an intense passion so its not all bad that this is happening.
<
p>Furthermore, I always love it when leftists get devoured by the political correctness / speech code monster that they created.