http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm

Yuck.

By the way, here's another USA Today link from 2004:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-10-19-kerry-black-vote_x.htm

How the African-American presidential vote split through the years between the Democratic and the Republican candidates:

1984 Walter Mondale 90% Ronald Reagan 9%
1988 Michael Dukakis 90% George H.W. Bush 10%
1992 Bill Clinton 83% George H.W. Bush 10%
1996 Bill Clinton 84% Bob Dole 12%
2000 Al Gore 90% George W. Bush 9%

The percentages tell a story of party loyalty that is now being twisted into a story about race.

Shame, Hillary, shame.

Baby, the problem is when Hillary continues to make comments like this, it further divides the party and gives the media talking points--she's sucking up to the working class vote and reifying this idea that Obama can't win with them, that he's "other." So this is over--and has been over since Feb--but she's continuing to do damage to him. There's no point in attacking her, but calling out and naming what she's doing is going to be important until she stops doing it.

I heard some discussion along these lines on NPR today.

On the one hand, I think it's absolutely valid to point out demographic trends. It doesn't seem to me that this, in and of itself, should not be viewed as racist or racially divisive. I'm not sure about whether the way Clinton is making her case is racially divisive. I suppose you could make a point that this is a big demographic, but her argument that it makes her more electable falls flat when she's losing. Who is she trying to convince with these statements? Is she saying that she doesn't think Obama can earn the support of these voters in the general election?

This is not 'attacking'. This is 'responding'.

Talk about patterns ...

Characterizing a response as an attack is certainly one of the other patterns that has emerged in this nomination process.

Lots of folks ready to make nice, but don't ask us to be chumps and unilaterally disarm in the face of a fresh barrage. That comes after after all sides agree to cool it. Judging by Hillary's latest, she's decided to turn up the heat.

She is truly the Japanese soldier on the Pacific island who thinks there's a war in 1948.

I have been trying to ride the Magical Unity Pony today, but just what the fuck is up with having to say that? It's as bad as anything she's said all year, which is saying quite a bit.

Does she think she's toughing her way onto the ticket? Does she think she's a Dixiecrat?

I'm sticking with my criticism that it's one thing to take these votes that she speaks of, and another thing to message about them. It's all the difference in the world.

The new messaging point paired with this -- you see it in Clinton's spinners today -- is that Florida and Michigan is a civil rights issue. So she's not just a tribune of the uneducated, bigoted white person, she's also just sticking up for the civil rights of the oppressed white voter at the hands of the vote suppressing (see Lanny Davis on CNN last night) Obama campaign.

It's reverse discrimination, I tells ya.

Wtf, seriously, wtf. This is the burn every bridge from the 20th Century campaign.

It would have made it easier if Obama had just won Indiana. These continual calls for her to drop out have gone on for months, and it's just silly. Oh my, a candidate who wants to challenge every primary. My head will explode.

I've had it! ENOUGH - Find out who the uncommitted Super Delegates are in your state (they are listed on Politico.com) and email them at their Congressional office or in care of the DNC.

Send postcards, call, leave messages...let them hear your voice one way or the other.

Public pressure always works.

So here is the emprical question: in all the various opinion polls showing Obama ahead of or even with McCain in the general, how does Obama do with traditional democratic voters?

Intra-party voting means absolutely nothing. What do the inter-party polls say?

(not that I am endorsing the importance of poll results 6 months out)

It's hard to put into words how disgusted I am.

Sorry, no time to read all comments so forgive me if this has been put out there by someone else, but...aren't the white-working-class-blue-collar-less(er)educated kind of voter largely a Republican voter anyway? Haven't Dems always had trouble connecting with this group?

I put this in a comment awhile ago and I'll say it again...I work with this 'voting block'(in a little factory in Greenwood,Indiana of all places)and I know that they generally vote Republican - by reflex it seems. Most are rather negative about the Clinton years, as you can imagine. And there's a bit of racist attitude here as well.
Anyway...every now and then (just recently as well), throughout my life growing up in Indiana, I've heard said that the Democratic Party is the 'Black' or 'minority' party.
Suppose my point here is that maybe some White voters (especially older generation) may just have a feeling that Dems, in general, represent people 'other' than themselves.

Our party vs. their party...Simple as that.

So, don't think Clinton would fair any better against McCain in this area than Obama would. Both belong to the'other'party that tends to be inclusive of...well everyone else...

Okay, so that's my stab at amateur pop psychology 101 - feel free to tear me a new one if you think it's necessary...

oh quit hyperventilating.

on another note: I am a bit of an amateur ethnographer, and am passingly familiar with a few hundred distinct ethnic groups, and intimately with a few dozen. Today I saw a gypsy family, and I thought, oh, there is at least one ethnic group I regard more dimly than African-Americans. Mind you, I haven't yet been to Africa proper, so I am sure Hutus etc etc are even scarier and less worthy of respect, as groups anyway. But the gypsies are not loved by anybody in Europe, although I know several Americans who get all weepy because the Slovaks and Romanians aren't nice to them. Well, for good reason. A people who believe work is dishonorable, but that stealing is honorable? Believe me, not nice poeple to have as neighbors. At the other end of the spectrum would be Slovenes. Polite, educated, cosmopolitan, gracious, disinclined to violence, and athletic to boot. Serbs are are also great people, a lot more outgoing than the Slovenes, but when they congregate in a crowd they tend to start jabbering like monkeys (see "Kovoso"). Greeks are overly haughty, and to dumb to realize they are just hellenized Slavs, and any people that cheer when foreign diplomats are assasinated doesn't get my high regard. You see, broad generalizations about different groups of people can be reasonably made. And unfortunately, African-Americans are just not very nice, broadly speaking. Although I will not that Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans can be pretty nasty much of the time, oh and American Jews are by and large a disgraceful bunch. Entirely unlike Israeli Jews, at least the kind who serve in the military, and not the fruitcake settler type.

I'll be honest, this doesn't strike me as racist. Unfortunate phrasing perhaps, and continued dicing of the electorate, but my bigger problem with it is that it's misguided, on two counts.
1, Losing a demographic in a primary does not translate to losing them in a general. And vice versa. It's entirely possible that many will vote McCain in the fall even if Clinton is the nominee. Either candidate will have to campaign for every vote.

2, The bigger picture, as I see it, is that the Democrats have to start thinking outside the box as far as the electorate. They will need to campaign, and campaign hard for all these votes. But relying solely on them is nothing short of foolish. We need to start thinking in terms of expanding the electorate, to increase voter turnout among groups that are going to vote Democrat in the fall.

Going back to 1976, the Republican nominee has taken more overall white votes than every single Democratic nominee. There are many other voting blocs that need to be considered, if we're playing the game of cutting up the electorate into sections.

I'll say flat out that I dont think Hillary Clinton is Racist.

I think what she is doing is right along old bigotry lines and is trying to instill past racial AND economic divides in the country.

Through her campaign neither her, Obama(he hasn't had to, to be honest), nor major networks have spoken on the fact that everyone who is voting for Obama isn't rich. As if it doesnt matter.

This is the kind of shit that keeps those of less economic opportunities or wealth continue thinking they need a President to do it FOR them. Instead of, like many of the rest of us, are perfectly fine with doing it our SELVES, whether we have to move, sell the home, etc etc we just want the government to work WITH us, instead of FOR us, or AGAINST us.

She's basically suckering the "poor white voters" who DO believe her.

But Racist? Nah not really. She is definitely doing it on PURPOSE. That makes her a diabolical asshole. Not racist.....at this point that is.

Is Jerome Armstrong a racist for sticking up for
Hillary Clinton?

http://jerome-armstrong.mydd.com/story/2008/5/8/103719/1420

Is Armando Llorens a racist for sticking up for Hillary Clinton?

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/7/172640/3833

Is Billy Glad a racist? Am I a racist? Who else is a racist?

I've conceded the race for one day and I already feel as if I understand and am living by Senator Obama's core message better than some of his so-called supporters.

Such filthy allegations so brazenly tossed around. So ugly. So sad. So dangerous. Ah yes, and so . . . recommended.

I think this link to a post by Armando Llorens is even more on point than the link in my initial comment. I recommend them both, and I submit that Armando is no more racist than any of us.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/7/14423/05860

Also the implcation that blacks are 1) not "working class" and 2) that blacks are so loyal that you can rob them of their vote and they will follow you like sheep.

In a sense, she's claiming that because "her" voters are more traitorous and fickle, they should be rewarded by stealing the nomination from the core Democratic supporters. The fact that some of these core supporters are black just makes it that much easier to disregard their votes. A grand tradition in this country.

I think it is incumbent upon the media to counter this spin with the observation that this sort of Jim Crow style disenfranchisement would destroy the party. The polls aren't showing it now, because it isn't likely to happen, and Obama's supporters can be gracious. But if it were to happen, it would get ugly and she would lose without a doubt.

She's so offensive. I don't see her ever becoming "gracious", it's an alien concept. And her surrogates are still nasty. The whole camp is filled with total rude arrogant obnoxious assholes.

Hillary Clinton does not belong in the White House as VP. She would be far more effective in the senate. As VP, Hillary would have to ask Obama what to do. In the senate, Obama (I would hope) would seek and need her council.

Bill would not be an asset to an Obama campaign. Making him the resident redneck would be transparent. Obama and Hillary could campaign together in any community. Bill could not.

Another option would offer Hillary Secretary of State. She could use her world-class talents in a world that needs help. A second choice for Secretary of State would be Colin Powell.

Obvious VP is Rendell. Obama needs the state. He needs a blue-collar Dem to work the working class, as it were, there and throughout the country. Obama is not going to win Florida. He can't afford to gamble on Pa.

As much as I value a unity of spirit now, I can't help suggesting that John Edwards be offered Secretary of Haircuts. In lieu of that offer, perhaps he might feed the homeless veterans under that bridge by his house, but only with his own money.

This comment is directed at Billy.

Any intellectually honest defense of Hillary's comment should reflect that it was badly put, sounds wrong, but [and then puts it in context and attempts to redirect to some positive].

Any defense of it that walks right past that and just says it's completely inoffensive, completely unproblematic, and good for you and the Party, like Cheerios, is not intellectually honest.

This is the kind of thing that has Dianne Feinstein and others like her telling Hillary to pipe down on racial division. This is Hillary's way of not piping down. Maybe some of her supporters are so smart they see the hidden higher purpose in continuing to call attention to racial divisions in our party. They must have brains the size of apartment complexes to discern the wisdom of it.

It appears to me (though of course I'm a brain-damaged syncophant) that she's either trying to insist on her significance viz a viz the white lunchpail vote to insist her way onto the ticket, or is simply indifferent to the growing hostility of the superdelegate class to racial division within the party.

Neither of those plausible explanations for persisting in this argument reflects well on her. Defending it without even acknowledging the negative it exacerbates for the fall, or recoiling from the jarring equation of white folks with hard working folks, is not the true-blue love of the Democratic Party that it pretends to be.

These guys are all over it:

http://www.americablog.com/

The ingnorance or willful ignorance of people who defend her for this shit is astonishing!!!!
The people that all the sudden dont know what subleminal message are, but yet they are so, so smart at a certain becomes laughable!

I always thought we make up 15% of the population, if others say 13% so the fuck what, its true! A Democrat using that against other Democrats is reprehensible and the people that pretend to not understand that make me reall sad for the Democratic party! Why dont you just sign up with the angry white man party?

Anyhow, Obama is better than that no matter how people try to spin, he is half white, and half black, just like my daughter is half Latino and half black, I dont expect her to dis own either even though she will be labled black and we live in a latino/white community! Freakin people with their magnifying glasses out trying to catch or lable Obama in some kind of racist position just to get the woman elected president, who already said that YOU/WE are elite and she is sucking up the republicans in order to define herself as different from Obama because in reality they are so much alike on most policy issues! Its disgraceful that people defend that and play stupid all the sudden when I read other things and they spark my brain because they are so smart! What the hell is wrong with some of you? Where do you want your party to go? Shame on the black people being such a small percentage of the population, and they want to see a person who visually looks like them as leader of the Country. Dont they know their place! Its ok for women to vote for Hillary because they are women, but for blacks, latinos, Asian, to vote based on race, well that's so offensive to you! Im so proud of the Democratic party on so many fronts, like Indiana and North Caroline for the most part not letting them divide you by race, but when the elite people of the party all the sudden play dumb as if they dont know what Hillary has done, it makes people like me want to criticize you!

Now back to politics as usual, the willful ignorance and such!

Thank God For those of you who understand what Obama brings to the table! Whether you care or not, its people like you who make me proud, because you dont let the distractions seperate you from common sense!

One more thing. I try my best to not be that sensitive black man regarding race. I go out of my way, just to give an example of why its so hard, I often here people explain away older white males because they are from the south and a different generation. So when people try, keyword try, to explain that Rev Wright is old, and from a generation that pissed on him, he is a hate monger! The double standards have to stop! I just heard Matthews excuse those older white people again on his show yesterday!...I know Im rambling.. but this really is some bullshit, but its what people who are the(minority population) have to deal with! Its not cool though!

I haven't read comments but in essence she is saying her can't win over these folks? Well she certainly isn't helping things. I mean she is making it worse to the point of if and when Obama gets nomination, those folks won't vote for him. Thanks to all this they won't!! So much for her saying she wants a Dem to win in November. She is f'n this up so bad. Bombing the nation to save it Hillary.

What happened to everyone coming together for the nominee? This is disgusting, Clinton is using the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR! THIS IS NOT 1952 Hillary!

She already is Liam. I pointed it out in one of the last two debates (look it up) when the black woman from politico.com sent an email to I think campble brown, about how he felt about Latino's or illego aliens stealing jobs from African Americans! Obama did what grown ups do and said as far as he can remember black people have always had a problem finding good jobs because of the system. He said we need to go after the employers! Hillary, again in an effort to show how she was different went with the Tancredo/Lou dobbs I hate mexicans speak!! I remember that vividly because it was before I chose Obama! I jumped up and celebrated because he didnt fall to the pressure that tends to divide us even its a question based on some reality and asked by a black person! Their is a stark difference between these two candidates, and HRC knows that, and is willing to make blacks expendible, the movement part of the democratic party expendible, and anyone else who gets in her way! She is the change we need to depart from! Having her on his platform does nothing to change this old style of politics! I care not if she is in his cabinet somewhere, but VP is now off limits! But again its his choice!

illegal!

Funny, because a big chunk of those whites supporting Clinton are NOT hardworking, they are unemployed due to trade deals her and her hubby pushed through, like NAFTA -- which cost Americans three Million manufacturing jobs.

But when confronted with that slice of reality, Little Ms. Hillary prefers to lie.

Super Dels should step in forthwith and force her out. She is clearly trying to polarize the electorate to disadvantage Obama.

Millions and Millions of whites have voted for Obama already. That low-life, sleaze-bag Clinton knows it. Otherwise he wouldn't be our nominee, now would he?

FREE REPUBLIC SAYS HILLARY CLINTON SAYS ONLY WHITES MATTER!

It appears Hillary is effectively stealing Barack's thunder after the Indiana/North Carolina primaries.

She is freakin' amazing.

Ack! I just realized -- she's trying to change the narrative. Right now the dominant MSM narrative is, "Clinton can't win. How will she gracefully find the exit?"

She would prefer to shift the narrative back to, "Why can't Obama win the white working-class vote? Can he win the general election?"

Don't take the bait!

From the USA TODAY article:

Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that."

I remember David Gergen said this months ago on CNN. He said Democrats have never won an election without winning the low-income white vote. He then cited Gore and Kerry as failing to do this.

Somehow it wasn't considered "racist" or "scorched earth" when Gergen said it.

I think because, like it or not, it's a demographic fact.

And so, just as in Virginia, Clinton won the Appalachian slice (western edge) of North Carolina (check out CNN's maps online). She's won all of Appalachia so far: in OH, PA, TN, and parts of VA, NC, IN, GA, AL, and MS. She will likely win WV and KY, if these previous states are predictors. Here is an article analyzing this geographic region of the country, and here is another.

As usual, Billy Glad is right upthread: Clinton is talking to the super delegates. She is pointing out Obama is not winning these crucial voters, but she is.

Her apparent 'mis-statement' about white voter's probably was part of her speech in PA too. Oh well, I guess it's not as bad as the"bitter" statement, right??? America, vote her down. She's just another 'stuck on herself' candidate like McCain, Bush, Bill Clinton. Let's play fair now. Everyone's tired, tired of you Hillary Clinton. Just get off the stage, quit making an ass of yourself. Your no better than anyone else. And it's a fact, your touch is deadly.

It's 3:00 a.m., and Hillary Clinton is racist:

http://wonkette.com/388584/hillary-finally-says-that-white-people-dont-like-obama