Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary Clinton Says Only Whites Matter
Hillary Clinton again plays the race card in her interview with USAToday. This is scorched earth policy in full view, folks, as you can see below:
This IS racially divisive, no ifs and buts about it, even though Greg tried to spin away his initial reaction towards Garin's use of this race card earlier today."I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
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."
link to article is here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
Comments (296)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm
Yuck.
May 7, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The implication here is that only white voters are hard-working, and that smart people, who actually got a college education, don't even matter.
May 7, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the post Flufferwink. Nothing has made me more angry than all of this racist garbage coming out of Camp Hillary since South Carolina. I expect from the Republicans, but it still saddens me that much of this has come from Bill and Hillary who I used to have such great respect.
I was feeling a little sorry for them looking at the Clinton family on stage in Indianapolis looking a little shaken and melancholy, but this turned me off again. It looks like the Superdelegates agree and have given the Clintons a veiled warning to stop or they'll flip without giving her a chance to finish the race with dignity. Unfortunately, with statements like this she takes the dignity and tosses it in the trash.
The Hillary Deathwatch on Slate.com had her chances at the nomination now at a lowly 2.5%:
http://www.slate.com/id/2190876/
"...So why isn't Clinton totally submerged? Because she hasn't taken herself out of the race yet. As long as she's hanging around, there's still a remote possibility that she can take Obama's place if the unpredictable happens. Plus, Deathwatch wouldn't be as much fun without her."
May 8, 2008 4:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It makes me sick, too, Amber, but I'm wondering if it's less a racist thing and more a blind devotion to the crowds who are still blindly devoted to her.
Remember the accusation that Obama supporters were "drinking the Kool Aid?" I'm thinking that the Hillary fans are downing gallons of spiked Hi-C and their drugged, rabid support is deluding her into thinking she still has a chance (like she knows the Hi-C is spiked, but is convinced they really love her).
I just read this article from Rolling Stone (yeah, I know, RS...) but it has an interesting take on the pro-Hillary bunch:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20626517/hillarys_bitter_victory
That, coupled with her comments to USA Today and I'm starting to think that it isn't that she doesn't like African Americans, but that it's more of the same old Clinton Loyalty - support them at all costs and they'll support you. Cross them and they call you Judas and cut you out (see, small states, caucus states, Bill Richardson, African Americans, the young, the educated, the list grows daily). At this rate, she'll give up on the U.S. and move to Canada or something.
May 8, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh heh. Well, she'll be disappointed when she gets to Canada and finds there are black people there, too.
May 8, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, but *they* didn't vote for Barack - so they're ok.
May 9, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but we would have if we could have!
May 10, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shhh!! Don't say that out loud! You'll make yourself "insignificant."
May 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
THEY MATTER MORE THAN MOST OF YOU TO THEM
I mean after all, who do you think invented velcro? Show some freakin respect.
R. Giuliani
McCain/White Stripes '08
May 8, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
It appears someone has highjacked the lifesaver because the percentage there is up to 18%
May 8, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see what you mean based on her poor phrasing, but I don't think that's exactly what was meant, so I'm not going to get riled.
The point she IS making, though -- that African-Americans can be taken for granted in the General Election, but white people can't -- is insidious.
Although, come to think of it... the implication is that black people are smarter than white people!
Now, if I knew there was a segment of the population that was smarter than other segments, would I support the candidate they favored with 90% of their vote? Why, I think I might!
This just in: "Hillary Says Obama's Supporters Smarter, More Patriotic Than Hers."
(apologies to all Hillsters. just a little sarcasm about your candidate here, not you.)
May 8, 2008 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
May 7, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thx for the hard numbers. good point.
May 8, 2008 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for posting this, Ive been yelling this at people who use the "well 90% of blacks are voting for Obama, thats not a racial divide? They are choosing him because he is black."
Neither are the case if you look at past presidential numbers.
Black people general(the democrats that is) get behind a candidate in large #'s.
And in my opinion it was always the RIGHT candidate.
May 8, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Black people are politically astute. We vote for the party that is friendlier to our own interests, and against the politicians who run race-baiting campaigns.
May 8, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, except for Ken Blackwell.
May 8, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, most black people. As an empirical matter, African-Americans do not fall, in large numbers, for the "What's the matter with Kansas?" issues that too often lead some white voters to support Republican policies that hurt their economic interests.
I'd guess that's partly because black communities' experience at the hands of government make them (us) much more likely to believe that conservative politicians might be lying to them (us) as they praise God and wrap themselves in the flag. Well, there's that and the fact that the politicians who campaign on WTMWK? issues tend to engage in anti-black and anti-Latino race-baiting, as well.
May 9, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Chino, great link, thanks!
What's crazier, is if you combine those stats with the margins of victory in 2000 and 2004 (which were razor thin as we all remember), AND Hillary's high negative ratings nationally, SHE needs every AA voter she can muster. Instead she's cutting off her nose to spite her face. And at this point it's clear that her "white power block" isn't as strong as she would have you believe. If she had all the white voters and women on lock-down she would have won in Iowa and we wouldn't be having this conversation. AA voters have been loyal Dems since the 60's and Hillary wants to marginalize and demonize us as somehow being out of touch with the "rest of America". It's shocking that even at this late hour in this process Hillary finds new ways to sink to new depths.
May 8, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't you get the memo? The primary season is over. Clinton lost. It's time to stop attacking her and time to start rebuilding unity within the democratic party.
It reminds me of this article from the Onion, about the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth harassing John Kerry even after he lost the election.
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/swift_boat_veterans_still_hounding
We don't want to be like that.
May 8, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, that Onion link was funny.
Especially this bit - not at all hard to imagine these lines coming out of Hillary's campaign ...
Comedy gold. Cheers.
May 8, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of meant it the other way: Obama people around here are still attacking Clinton, even though Obama has won. Time to turn off the hate.
May 8, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been watching this one all day. The whole thing, beginning with the headline is trolling. There is serious dislike right under the surface here and it's easy to exploit. Going to be hard to get around.
May 8, 2008 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Scorched earth" trolling, in fact.
May 8, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
gasket, a lot of people have wondered what would happen at TPM when a democratic candidate was finally announced. Of course, technically there's not one yet, but I think everyone, including you and Billy, now think that Obama will be the nominee, barring some really unforeseen development.
But I kind of see alignments shifting already, between those who want to move on, and those who want to keep fighting the last fight. I agree with your comment, which surprises me. I've also disagreed with a lot of what clearthinker has been saying, which also surprises me.
I think that it is just a transitional phase. But it does make me believe that there will always be room for disagreement on these boards.
May 8, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the shift is fascinating. ;-)
May 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Piaget would find it fascinating. But if it weren't for allsburg we could all put this campaign behind us. I keep finding ways for Hillary to lose, and allsburg keeps reminding me she has to win since she won PA -- or I'll be wrong. (I find it difficult to even type that word.) Of course, making Obama's final victory contingent on me being wrong is going to draw this thing out -- and, possibly, cost Obama the nomination. But allsburg doesn't care. So if the Obamanauts want to get down on someone, they should get down on allsburg for putting the personal satisfaction of hearing me admit I was wrong about TX, OH and PA above an Obama victory. To state the obvious, allsburg is being childish.
May 8, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was never going to bring it up again. I swear. I had taken a solemn and secret oath. You will never hear the words flow from my mouth again.
May 9, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually Clinton needs to turn off the hate ... because there are a lot of dopes -- like Billy -- who still follow her no matter what she does. And that is truly sad.
May 8, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
BionicSoy, even though Billy and I are on the opposite sides with respect to our candidate choices, there are many ways in which he and I are closer in temperament and ideology than either of us is to you. I don't think there's ever been a time when Billy would have followed Clinton "no matter what she does."
May 8, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Allsburg,
The point of the USA article is that apparently Hillary didn't get the memo, either. Not only is her language that of someone still in it to win it, it's the language of someone who deliberately invokes race as her argument for her candidacy--that only white, less-educated voters "matter."
As I read somewhere else on this same article, someone needs to ask her about her plummeting appeal among African-Americans--a segment of the electorate that has been not just loyal but indispensable to Democrats, as Chino's chart shows. Someone needs to ask her why THOSE people don't have to be won.
This woman, a tireless advocate of civil rights in her younger days, saying something like this when not half a day earlier she said publicly that she would support the party's nominee . . . it's either further proof of her say-anything-do-anything strategy, or she's so far gone that she just doesn't know what she's saying.
May 8, 2008 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
You guys need to watch out for Josh Marshall, too. On the front page today, he pointed out that African-Americans only make up 13% of the US population. How racist can you get?
May 8, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not today, Billy. OK? That's lame. Even for you.
May 8, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read the front page. Josh actually misses the loyalty angle that a commentator notices upstream. He doesn't understand what "base" means. All you understand is that if Clinton said it, it must be bad. Tedious.
May 8, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
You lost me at 'upstream' ... what did I miss?
May 8, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think I found it. So ... Somebody's moving to Canada? Really? I've got friends there. Maybe I can help out, be part of the 'transition team' and all ...
May 8, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
amazing how her defenders can still find their way out of the wood work.
she said it because she means it.
she is a racist.
period.
cant swallow it?
i think you can.
May 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
amazing how her defenders can still find their way out of the wood work.
she said it because she means it.
she is a racist.
period.
cant swallow it?
i think you can.
May 8, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please, Billy Glad. She's subliminally playing world champion of victims again -- women I will make sure your voices are heard. Hardworking white people, I'm your girl. It's tedious. And it didn't win her enough votes to keep her out of this pickle anyway. Bottom line: She didn't get enough votes. The horses she bet so heavily on just couldn't carry the day. End of story.
May 8, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she's talking to the super delegates. They're grownups. They can make up their own minds about whether what she's saying is true or not.
May 8, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right about this. The intended audience has to be the super-delegates. However, why make this argument so publicly? The only purpose that can serve is to get the press yammering about it. However you want to judge her comments aside, if the intended audience is the super-delegates then this is a miscalculation on her part.
May 8, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's putting pressure on them through their constituents. Same deal as when JJ, Jr. was calling black Congressmen up saying, are you going to stand in the way of the first black nominee? Maybe she'll quit after KY and WVA. Those are two states where she'll get to start with 20% of the vote for a change.
May 8, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah. But that "only" 13% makes up a full third of the Democratic base. And it's the most loyal voting bloc the Democrats have. And to be honest, the Democrats have taken them for granted and haven't done a whole lot for them in a very long time.
May 8, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Luck with that.
May 8, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
May 8, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Using racist fears to divide voters makes you a racist. Period.
May 8, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Dianne Feinstein got the answer to her question to Hillary about what her campaign strategy would be going forward.
May 8, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
So very true.
Let me get this straight: we're supposed to shut up and "unify" unilaterally, while she's out there saying white folks matter and black folks don't, so any red state that Obama wins doesn't count and only the red states she wins matters, or whatever laws and rules she breaks and bends and distorts.
Lawrence O'Donnell and other pundits today just assumed she'd back off and behave to make a graceful exit. There is nothing graceful about Hillary Clinton. She has trashed the ideals of the Democratic party beyond recognition. And the longer the superdelegates allow her to continue, they are complicit in the implosion of the party.
We were ready today to come together. 90% of us. But she saw that as a weakness and drove her racist-baiting truck right through it.
Her hubris is breathtaking.
May 8, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you on this.
May 8, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Double agree.
We all need to work for unity, and the Obama campaign is doing it well -- their response to this was more in sorrow than in anger.
But since this is only going to be read by thirty people, twenty of whom are Obama supporters, let me just say, Jeeeeeeeezus! What the f--- does she think she's doing? "I'm more electable, because more white people like me." "Yes, he has more total voters, but I have more of the white ones." How does this sort of rhetoric help Hillary, or you, or me, or anyone on the left?
Suppose Obama did the same thing with gender. "In practice, most female voters already vote Democrat. What we need to get are the guys, and I'm attracting more of them." Would that sort of rhetoric seem sexist at all to you? Dismissive of female voters? It might contain 55% truth, but it's also 45% false, and 100% divisive and unhelpful.
I'm beginning to wonder if Hillary's Senate seat is going to be secure after this campaign. I'd sure as hell contribute to a primary challenger, because I have 0.0% respect left for her.
May 8, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is something really wrong with. There has to be. This is a very twisted (and damaged and damaging) psychopathology.
May 8, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think she wants to make waves, not because she thinks she's got a shot at the nomination, but in order to keep the pressure on the Obama campaign while terms of the truce are being negotiated. Probably about the $$$.
May 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am also 57 and female. And we are old enough to remember the civil rights movement and how difficult it was and IS for Americans to change, even "good" Americans. What Hillary has done is to affirm their "bad" side. She and Bill have told them in code, sure, but told them nevertheless, that it's still OK for them to vote on race. It's OK to reject Obama because of his skin color alone. It's not only OK, they encourage it.
May 8, 2008 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
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?
May 8, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's what she's saying----that Obama can't get the white vote in November.
May 8, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is she saying that she wouldn't help him earn their support?
May 8, 2008 12:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
should say
May 8, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not so much what she's saying but how she's saying it. Big diff.
May 8, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
The Clintons have been playing the race-card since February.
May 8, 2008 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's called code, and good old boy bubbas grew up with it, know how to use it, where to use it, and who to use it against. Bill and Hillary both know better, they just aren't any better.
May 8, 2008 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The entire problem is that voting AMONG democrats is not predictive of voting between demcorats and republicans.
She is winning a segment of the democratic electorate. Why do we assume they will not vote democrat in the general?
Better yet. Why do we only ask this question about non-college educated whites? The divide between young and old seems just as stark if not moreso? Why isn;t Clinton running around saying Obama has a big problem with older voters?
May 8, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 8, 2008 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is the picking and choosing of which demographics to emphasize that is heightening the race consciousness.
Just ask yourself why she's not talking about Obama's big problem among older democrats?
May 8, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I mean that in a broader sense than merely what comes out of the the mouths of pols. For instance, I don't think it's racist to point out the disparity in conviction rates for drug possession between blacks and whites. This is an analysis of a demographic trend. I think it's absolutely valid and not at all racist or racially divisive to point this out. In fact, keeping this a secret or otherwise precluding it from discussion strikes me as being racially divisive.
May 8, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hum. I think I agree.
Another knee-jerk tempest in a teapot, which isn't good at a time when folks should be focusing on unity.
Hillary has lost, what is the point of this, other than to sow more division?
May 8, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I don't think it's exactly a tempest in a teapot. I'm really having a hard time parsing this in a way that doesn't come out as stupid at best and racially divisive at the worst. And Hillary bears the ultimate responsibility for her remarks. If she were to stop saying things like this it would go a lot farther in moving on than what a few bloggers do or don't have to say about it.
May 8, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, maybe you agree with me that it's BULLSHIT, then.
I mean, come on. Clinton is going to actively trash African Americans because .....why?
It strains credulity. It has far too much in common with GOPUSA talking points to have any merit beyond those sheeple that just want to bash Hillary. I mean, they're having fun
I'm sorry, I actually converse with actual Freepers. This is EXACTLY their line, and yes, they want the Dem L/Dem R leaning faction to splinter.
Let's just stop them.
Unity.
Please.
May 8, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
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.
May 8, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just when I thought it was safe to go back to lovin' Billary. She pulls this. Why, why, why damage Barack further?
May 8, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why isn't someone in the public arena coming out and saying "Do you realize you're insinuating that blacks aren't hardworking Americans? ANSWER TO THIS."
May 8, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, of course they're not. Black people take jobs away from hardworking white people through affirmative action. Silly. Are you going to vote for a black guy over a hardworking, shot throwing down, economist-spurning real gal like Hillary?
May 8, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is the truly objectionable part here. At best, it's a gaffe--a very unfortunate construction. At worst, it's intentional exploitation of an indefensible racist stereotype.
I've been discussing here and there tonight the need to give this some time to play out gracefully. Trying to believe that Clinton was finally coming to terms with her loss. And some signs continue to point to that.
But at the same time I'm starting to wonder about her intentions going forward. I think Rachel Maddow's cynicism might have been justified . . .
May 8, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this is a gaffe, it needs to be exploited.
If this is a racist move, it needs to be reported on.
Both are two bad moves to make in this election campaign and its exactly what's needed to put Hillary Clinton to rest since she's going to play hard headed and stay in this race that she know she cannot win.
The MSM keeps speaking of acts of God, or just "something" that might happen that would change the stakes in the election in her favor. (Totally discounting Barack btw). When they are completely missing the things that Hillary Clinton is saying that is just plain wrong.
May 8, 2008 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a gaffe. I don't think Hillary Clinton makes these kinds of mistakes.
For the record, I don't think she's a racist either.
I think she IS race-baiting. I think she's doing it to try and drive up her margins among white votes, thinking that if she can get 80% of the "working class white" vote, she can completely offset her disadvantage among A-A voters.
So, I think her motives aren't racial at all - they're just electoral. I still haven't decided which is more slimy.
May 8, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your definition of racism is kinder than mine. If you exploit or manipulate race and in so doing demean or denigrate an entire ethnicity a as a shrewedly calculated means to an end, you are racist.
May 8, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see a racist as someone who believes in the inherent superiority of one race over another.
I don't think she believes that. If she did, she would not have hired Maggie Williams as her campaign manager. So, no, I don't think she's racist.
However, that doesn't mean she isn't calculating, lowdown and slimy.
May 8, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would work if we were talking about dividing people into beer drinkers and wine drinkers but race is the American original sin. It's playing with fire and hate. Good politics or not, it's too dangerous a tactic to use and it is deeply, morally, wrong.
May 8, 2008 6:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's a gaffe, either. I was ready to move on, but she's obviously going to have to be pushed aside. Too bad, but there it is.
After all, Kentucky and W.VA are coming up, and this sort of rhetoric will -- she thinks, but I hope she's wrong -- will resonate there among some white voters as it did in Pennsylvania. Expect more on the gas tax holiday or some similar sort of transparently stupid pander that will fool some, enough, people.
Hillary, I was ready to reach out in friendship, but you've proven you're unfit for the office yet again.
Go. Away. Now.
May 8, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Following this here and at dKos ...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/7/23742/84530/84/511469
Fave dKos comment so far:
Yup.
May 8, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's also one of the nicer comments from Kos, as well as one of the very few comments that can be reprinted in a family forum.
May 8, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
May 8, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Japanese soldiers, 1948? I guess this explains why she's taken to cannibalizing another Democrat to survive.
ugh.
May 8, 2008 2:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
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.
May 8, 2008 2:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem isn't that a candidate wants to challenge every primary: The problem is that a candidate with a 0% chance of winning is using racially divisive politics to attack the presumptive presidential nominee of her own party!!!
May 8, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, but didn't you get the memo ...
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/building-peace-by-digby-heres.html
Never mind that we're treating paid-up members in good-standing of the Democratic coalition as if their votes aren't as good as everybody else's ...
What Digby and others are trying to pass off as Democratic Politics is nothing more than Clinton Apologetics.
Enough already. You apologists need to call your own candidate on the carpet over this nonsense.
May 8, 2008 2:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, please. Please, for Chrissake. At this point, surely, everyone can see that this sort of rhetoric does nothing to help the left. It does nothing, honestly, to help anyone.
May 8, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congressional leaders promise that Hillary won't go negative on Obama
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/us/politics/08campaign.html?_r=3&pagewanted=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
h/t AmericaBlog:
http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/congressional-leaders-promise-that.html
Exactly how much more negative does the tone need to get?
May 8, 2008 3:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is time for the super-delegates to make it clear -- Hillary has to go NOW. She was all over (and the press played right along) "bitter" all over "if my pastor", all over Rezko, all over "weathermen", her and her people have been dog whistling to bigots for the last several months...and now it's hardworking WHITE voters.
It's time for Hillary to be shut down. She's NOT changed her tone, behavior as some said she would. Fool me once, shame on me...fool me twice...the point is we can't get fooled again.
Will the press pick up on this like they did on every damned Obama swipe??? Call your super-delegates and tell them to put this thing out of it's misery. Hillary is acting dangerously narcissistic. Pull the damn plug on her already.
May 8, 2008 4:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think she's saying Obama needs her in the VP slot to win back those white voters she's turned against him. At the same time her campaign (Garin in the morning conference call) is bragging about their success in alienating white voters from Obama, they're saying she's considering 'requesting' the VP position, and Stephanopoulis is transmitting the inside word that she's staying in the race to 'negotiate' a place on the ticket.
May 8, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
meant to reply to the DF question upthread:
May 8, 2008 4:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill and Hillary Clinton STILL have African American statesmen and stateswomen supporting them. CNN on the day of the Mississippi vote interviewed an African American female supporter of Clinton who said:
"She implement change. She stands by her words. She speak it. She do what she say. She bring it home?"
This black person was middle-aged, a registered nurse and -- also-- a religious minister. She was -- evidently -- a lot less porous when the campaign slogans and posters hit town.
So I don't think that the Clintons are racist.
I think that the Axelrod strategy was to cast the campaign in racial rather than sexist terms and he went for the jugular in South Carolina, sunk his teeth in and hasn't let go. I find it repugnant but I must grudgingly admit, it's as effective as anything that Rove did in the last two elections to get Bush in.
If this were a state election, I'd be fascinated.
But it's a presidential election. And I'm worried.
To get back to strategy in terms of the general election, the Democratic Party has to ask:
How many African Americans will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee?
How many whites will vote for McCain if Obama is the candidate?
It's politics as usual in the case of Axelrod muddying up Clinton so his candidate could close in on the African American vote or the Democratic Party choosing the 2nd place candidate because Obama cannot "close" on Reagan Democrats. It's, unfortunately, not about being "fair", it's about "winning."
What is particularly symptomatic is the surfacing of the voices of the losers : Kerry, McGovern...
The last question one could ask is -- with all the impatience that people feel about Hillary Clinton's tenacity -- would she have out-haggled Bush in 2000 over Florida? Tenacity might be a virtue, it might even have prevented a war.
May 8, 2008 5:04 AM | Reply |