Reader Blogs
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER BLOGS HOME | next »
It Is Not Racism
It is the worst kind of eleitist BS. Hillary is not a racist but she thinks that workingclass whites are incapable of rising above racism. We are the ignorent ones who will never vote for some one with too much melanin. I have a clue for you Hillary - It was us workingclass types who sent him the small donations he used to great effect in kicking your ass.
You think that the benighted people at the botom of the economic spectrum regardless of race are only to be manipulated by the elites like your self. You think we must be lied to and tricked into doing what is best for us. Obama tells us the truth and you think that marks him as a hoplesly niave loser. Even him handing you your hat does not wake you up to the reality that we can take the truth. Your gas tax pander did not work because we are not as stupid as you think. And Obama will win because we are not as divided and racist as you think we are.
Comments (103)
Wait til you read Paul Krugman's piece today. I'm speechless:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09krugman.html
May 9, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not exactly speechless about it, I just don't quite get the point of it. I mean, Krugman seems to be coming from a central assumption that Obama doesn't want white votes, that he has to be warned not to "squander" them. Oh really? And what populist message is it that he thinks Obama must begin to communicate? This generic, he must speak about the things that matter to working class America is a bit mystifying. Is the implication that Obama isn't speaking about healthcare, cost of living, tax cuts or what?
Seems to me like Krugman just can't stop wagging his finger, even though he does realize now that he should.
May 9, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The piece cramped my brain. Hillary's graciousness and goodwill is what stands between Barack and her voters. If she can swallow her pride and work to get him her voters, I think he's there. Barack's message is not the problem. It's just that Hillary's was also strong and people, facing uncertainty, picked the known Clinton-Brand. Not trying to knock Hillary. I'm trying to say that the fate of November rests in her hands right now.
May 9, 2008 1:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are two courses of action she can chose from to help him in the fall. She can either graciously help him or act so horibly that she turns off her most loyal supporters. It looks like she intends to go for the second option.
May 9, 2008 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It looks like she intends to go for the second option."
Larry, I agree with that, as I agree with your original post at the top of the page. I honestly believe she can't help herself; she is sociopathic and considers herself better than everyone else. I would not have said that four months ago, but her behavior since Super Tuesday changed my perspective.
May 9, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I have once again allowed myself to be drawn into an argument about the defects of the loser of this nomination battle. She is that bad but it is no longer relevent and I should be ashamed for forgeting it.
May 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not sorry. You're not ashamed. You're stubborn.
So good luck with that! See you at the convention!
May 9, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will not be at the convention but I will surely be watching on TV when Obama gives his acceptance speach on the 45th aniversary of Dr King's Dream Speach. that will be well worth the time to watch again and again. I cannot wait to see how much of a 'convention bounce' he enjoys.
May 9, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
20+ points.
May 9, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great reply---just like your main post. Lovin it!
May 9, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The piece was really biased too by including Brazile's remarks without noting that she was responding to Begala saying 'my democratic party cannot be a coalition of eggheads and africanamericans, that is just not a winning coalition'
Obama will and has been reaching out to ALL Americans every since his campaign began. He has stated that 'politics did not not lead me to the working class, the working class led me to politics'
And as far as Krugmans advice about focusing on economic issues independent of race he must not have listen to Obama's victory NC speech where he said that very thing...
that we cannot allow the political focus of the media to play on our fears to exploit our differences for political gain and turn us aagainst each other on the basis of race, economics or working class status.
Obama also said that security, opportunity and compassion are not conservative or liberal values they are AMERICAN values.
Krugman jsut has a bug up his butt about Obama that prevents him from seeing the forest for the trees.
May 9, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have 'gone to the Republican nominee for many elections.' On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that 'we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.' That sort of thing has to stop."
Did you notice that Krugman, in true hacktacular style, failed to place Brazile's comment in context by including the Begala comment to which she was responding. And Axlerod is right, the so called "Reagan democrats", to whom he was referring (a fact also omitted by Krugman) have vote republican since before Reagan.
Krugman is embarrassing himself with his shrill shilling.
May 9, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
He has a habit of warping information. Axelrod said we can't solely rely on those voters.
May 9, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
He (like many others who are in some way associated with that camp) has become what he fought hardest against in order to win.
It's not going to work, but even if it did, I wonder how it would have turned out? Would they revert to supporting progressive policies or realize that everything is just easier when you lie, distort, threaten and cajole to get people to do what you want?
May 9, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So what can be done to heal the party’s current divisions?
More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.
Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance."
Good grief, Krugman did everything but say 'those Kool-Aide drinking Obama supporters." He's in a position to tell Hillary to cool it and be a uniter. He just can't bring himself to do it. At least he's taken the first step of acceptance that Obama is the nominee.
David Kurtz was right about his Peggy Noonan WSJ column. It's great and Krugman should be ashamed that she did the column that he should have:
"White Americans? Hard-working white Americans? "Even Richard Nixon didn't say white," an Obama supporter said, "even with the Southern strategy."
If John McCain said, "I got the white vote, baby!" his candidacy would be over. And rising in highest indignation against him would be the old Democratic Party.
To play the race card as Mrs. Clinton has, to highlight and encourage a sense that we are crudely divided as a nation, to make your argument a brute and cynical "the black guy can't win but the white girl can" is -- well, so vulgar, so cynical, so cold, that once again a Clinton is making us turn off the television in case the children walk by.
"She has unleashed the gates of hell," a longtime party leader told me. "She's saying, 'He's not one of us.'""
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027865275678423.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc
May 9, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peggy Noonan: The Voice of the Democrat Party.
May 9, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly more so than Hillary Clinton these days.
May 9, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll tell you a secret: I wrote "Democrat" not "Democratic" on purpose. It's what Republicans call our party.
May 9, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Duh.
May 9, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ironic with cherries on top, isn't it?
May 9, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer..."
When Hillary stops her tirades, perhaps Obama supporters will stop theirs.
May 9, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unlikely.
May 9, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, Clinton supporters don't see Clinton as a racist or as someone who played the race card. Only the Obama supporters cried "Racist." And the only evidence they offer is that Bill Clinton tried to minimize the effect of her SC loss--something all politicians and their campaigns do.
We feel that the Obama supporters would have leveled similar accusations at Dodd, Biden, Edwards or anyone else who had the gall to challenge their hero.
And the sheer intensity of the hatefulness expressed by Obamabots here does scare us away from your candidate.
And I'm a long time progressive who's always voted Democratic. Moderates must really be scared.
May 9, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gibberish . . . .
May 9, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrata lost the last time and the time before on the constituency that Obama has put together. If he loses the election, he'll subside into the Senate as Kerry did.
But his campaigning techniques which have inspired so many enthusiastic -- and often impolite -- posts like the one above, those campaign techniques will be noted and adopted.
One of the reasons for Clinton's campaign success in March and April was that she was already adapting. Whether her adaptation was too late remains to be seen.
As for racism, when an African American Obama supporter harasses a pro-Clinton African American by calling him an "Uncle Tom" to ensure those "spontaneously" 90% African American vote, is that racism?
May 9, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry was not the change agent in the 2004 primary. He was the safe, centrist, party insider choice like Hillary. The reason we have been losing elections is that we have failed to differintiate ourselves from the GOP. The GOP light, DLC, loser in this election is Hillary and thankfully we did not make that error again. I am sick to death of the party elders choice being chosen over the change agent. The only time we have gone with the exciting candidate since I started voting in 84 was 92. Bill Clinton was the fresh insurgent candidate. This cycle it is Obama. Nominating that candidate is how to win an election.
May 9, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's just dead wrong. Clinton was a very centrist candidate and he stayed to the center in 1996.
Obama is out of the Ted Kennedy wing of the party. The only two examples are McGovern and Dukakis, who were not coincidently the biggest losers since 1864. Watch and see. Once the nomination is secured (which may already have happened) watch for these code words:
Community organizer,
Ultra liberal/the most liberal member of the senate,
connections of all sorts to Ted Kennedy and
references to his being from the south side of Chicago.
May 9, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not talking about a left/right divide. I am talking about who is the fresh candidate, exciting people versus the establishment candidate. Bill was the outsider running against the party establishment just as Obama is this cycle. Bill has become the establishment by virtue of being president and he brought Hillary along for the ride.
May 9, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is this like the first time you've ever paid attention to a campaign. Every election (going back several centuries) candidates use the "I'm not from Washington" meme. Huckabee, Romney, Richardson and others all used it the same.
It's the worst type of pandering, but politicians do it because it works. Bush used it in 2000. Reagan used in 1980. Don't you remember the debates from those campaigns?
Obama is not anything like Clinton in 92. Trust me.
May 9, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not talking about the rhetoric you note. I have folowed every election since I was a child. We folowed politics in my family like some people folow sports. I cannot tell you who won a world series or superbowl ever but I have folowed every presidential election including the primaries since '76. Every cycle except 2000 there is a candidate who is running the exciting campaign. He always scares the bejesus out of the party insiders and they try to quash him in the primary. When they fail is when we win elections '76, and '92 were years when they failed. They failed again this year.
May 10, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry, the non-change agent, is backing your guy, don't forget.
May 9, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
readytoblowagasket: The change that John Kerry will bring about in 2008? He's the anti-swiftboat taskforce leader. He will not allow Obama to be swiftboated. Lesson learned, and no more Mr. Nice Democrat.
May 10, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, Wade. Have you seen this yet?
May 10, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
gasket: That's good stuff. The Onion is amazing. Love the video of 9/11 Truthers vs. Al Qaeda in a debate. Also, here's what they did for Hillary's profile: ""Signature Issue: Becoming President of the United States""
Anyway, my roommate had a copy of "Kerry: Unfit For Command" on the bookshelf. Honest to god, I snuck into his room a few days ago, pulled it down, and tossed it into a dumpster. No joke. (It's bad to trash books, but I figured the Book Gods would let me get away with that one...)
May 10, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Joe Klein put it "....the media — like pollsters and political consultants — tend to look in the rearview mirror and pretend to see the future."
And this statement of yours is completely wrong "The Democrata lost the last time and the time before on the constituency that Obama has put together."
The electorate has changed considerably from four years ago. Legions of young folks have been attracted into the process by both the Obama and Clinton campaigns; Hispanics are moving substantially towards the democrats, thanks to republican demagoguery of the immigration issues; and the Obama is not running the anachronistic DLC inspired campaign the Kerry, Gore, and Clinton have run.
May 9, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Vaughn, you are an idiot. That is a variation on the same stupid explanation GOPers give for getting only 8% of the Black vote.
How does ANYTHING someone says in public influence how someone votes in private? If Black people didn't want to be called "Uncle Tom", they could always TELL people they voted one way, then vote anbother way in the comfort of the voting booth,couldn't they? And how is it "racist" for Obama to get 90% of the Black vote but it was AOK when Bill Clinton got the same numbers? So your "argument" on why Obama got 92% makes no sense. But you know what DOES make sense? THEY JUST DIDN'T LIKE HILLARY AS MUCH! Ditto with young Whites and college educated Whites. When those of a demographic group who are both younger and better educated reject you, maybe you should ask why . . . .
May 9, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you don't. You don't really get it at all.
You don't get Hillary. You don't get the party. You don't even get Barack's message.
If you did get it, you would understand that after 8 years of being brainwashed by neocons, the Democrats have to go through a sort of exorcism. If Democrats don't face the realities before us, there can be no change.
No change = President McCain.
Yes, this exorcism, this reality-facing, this de-programming is painful. But so what? It's not going to kill us. It obviously needs to be done now, not later, like only if Barack is elected. If it's not done now, he won't be elected.
If you are the change you have been waiting for, then change now.
May 9, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, RBG that is totaly devoid of content. What is theis reality that I am missing? What belief system must be deprogramed?
May 9, 2008 7:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you think it's devoid of content. Like I said, you don't get it.
You are mimicking Republican talking points we have had drummed into our heads for years. You think Hillary is divisive, when in fact it's been the Republicans who divided us. Yes, Democrats are divided: just look at the nearly even popular vote split among us.
At least you don't think Hillary is a racist. But you are wrong to think she gives working class whites so little credit. She's calling out to them, at least in West Virginia, where they voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004. She's trying to call the voters who work in the coal mines back to the party. And she's trying to shame the party into accepting working class whites back into the fold.
Sorry, but it sounds to me like you're the one who gives working class whites so little credit for being able to think for themselves.
May 9, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reasoning is so twisted I can't even make sense of it.
Although I guess it's just because I am trying to take it through my frame of reference in what I would consider to be a Democratic viewpoint. And I know that that is misguided, as the Party is so broad that many, many, many people of different walks of life belong to it and there is hardly anything we can all agree on.
I think I can see why you might favor Senator Clinton though, if you think we need to make a rightward shift to appeal to voters who have traditionally supported Republican candidates. I myself feel that is a price not worth paying, as there is no reward to it but further (negative) destruction of the "ratchet..."
I can't remember who said it, but I read somewhere someone describe the party system of the United States as operated by a ratchet:
-The Republican Party serves to move the country's policies and discourse ever rightward, by an increasing order of magnitude
-The Democratic Party serves as a ratchet to stop the rightward movement of policy and discourse. There is no movement to the left, just a slowing (and theoretically a halt, although I have not witnessed it in my [admittedly short] lifetime) of movement to the right.
With the DLC, which Senator Clinton is unfortunately deeply involved with, the Democratic Party may lose even this method of slowing the rightward trend in the nation. Whether this is to court Reagan Democrats, white people, working-class people or whatever group, it ultimately consigns us to living in a country defined by its solidly right-wing policy and discourse.
It goes beyond a Democrat or a Republican administration or congress: ultimately, it's the policies that matter, and it doesn't matter whether the administration or legislators have Ds or Rs after their names.
May 9, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I'm going to try to explain myself, not that I'll succeed!
That's what the Democratic Party used to be. Reagan and Bush II effectively shattered the party's demographics, which is how they got elected.
We can see this shattering of the demographics in the Democratic primary results. Now that we're far enough along in the process, we know that Clinton and Obama can each pull some demographic groups but not others. The popular vote is so nearly even it's amazing. I don't mean that the popular vote is literally dead-even; I mean it's 49% to 48%. That is remarkable.
I believe Clinton is staying in to coax the old-school Democrats back into the fold because Obama isn't doing it. For whatever reason, he doesn't appeal to Appalachia, a region which comprises or touches OH, PA, IN, TN, VA, NC, MS, AL, GA, WV, and KY. But the Dems need those votes in Nov. We used to have them. As a pro-labor state, there's no reason why West Virginia should not vote Democratic. Yet as I mentioned, George Bush won WV in 2000 and 2004.
The elitist media likes to assume poor white rural voters are racist (without ever interviewing them, I'd like to point out). I think the Appalachian voters are simply loyal to the Clintons. Loyalty, like family, is important to them (I have been reading some local articles about how beloved Bill is in WV).
I think Clinton is going to win WV and KY. Once she brings those Dems back, she'll negotiate for the seating of FL and MI. She may continue, or she may concede, pivot, and hand the voters over to Obama. She may end up being the VP choice, who knows? Whatever happens, I think she's doing the necessary gruntwork so the party wins in Nov.
This is going to sound even more twisted to you, but I think Clinton is left of Obama. That's why I support her instead of him. But I'm old-school in temperament (old-school as in FDR-style populist Dem) if not age (I'm Obama's age).
If it's any consolation, I admit I didn't get what Clinton was doing at first myself. Read her exact words very carefully and try to shut out the headline spin. The headline is sensationalized simply to get us to read the story.
May 9, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The quickest way she could get MI and FL seated is by droping out. Staying in after the 21st just delays their being seated.
May 9, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's your rush? Obviously this is going to play out longer than you want it to.
May 9, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not in a rush. I think she should stay in until at least the 21st though June 4th would be OK. I do not want her out of the race. I just want her to act like she has some home-training and stop with the divisive BS.
May 9, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton is to the left of Obama and has campaigned to his left. He has explicitly campaigned to the center, adapting some Republican talking points including the Republican lie about nasty liberals not respecting religion.
Honestly, I don't know who these Obama supporters are. They call themselves progressives and thanks to them we will soon be offering the most conservative presidential nominee since before FDR.
I agree Clinton's phrasing was unfortunately, but she was speaking predominantly about the working class. Rightly or wrongly, Obama is seen as condescending to them, calling them bitter, holding contempt for them. Clinton can reach them because they have always been part of the Clinton coalition. The Clintons have always been it's the Economy, Stupid and the Economy is first and foremost a class issue.
In 92, he Clintons worked with white and African American working class voters in a broad coalition to win - and African Americans did well under Clinton's presidency and they know that the Clintons have done much to fight racism. One of the reasons, I think, that most of the charges of racism have come from white liberals - even black Obama supporters such as Cornel West express their profound admiration and friendship for Clinton while endorsing Obama.
If white liberal Obama supporters with the classist anathema and class hatred of working class people make it impossible for Obama to bridge that gap, he will lose. All the Obama supporters suggesting that the party forget about the white working class or as Nathalie said yesterday, "we don't need them" will destroy not only the Obama campaign, but the Democratic party if they are successful. The Democratic Party has always been the party of the working people.
Anyone reading these pages has plenty of evidence to offer up that Obama supporters have all the contempt for working class voters that they are suspected of having. All I can say is that I hope undecided voters, and those white working class voters never read what you all have to say about them.
May 9, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Anyone reading these pages has plenty of evidence to offer up that Obama supporters have all the contempt for working class voters that they are suspected of having."
I have contempt for anyone who voted for Bush in 2004, because those votes have caused millions of people to suffer for no reason. Those votes have also helped shred our Constitution and cripple our economy.
May 9, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
IT HAS BEEN A PRIMARY ELECTION.
Is it so difficult to understand that one can not validly project what will happen in the general election by looking at what happened in the primary when two democrats have been running against each other?
Damn I am sick of reading this kind of nonsense. Not just because it is wrong, but more so because it's already a cliche. Why not save your self some time and just post "What Wolfson said."
May 9, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
YOU'RE A MORON, CHRIS BROWN!
Can you hear me?
Now, if you can also read, I supplied some nifty articles to support my argument. Howard Wolfson did not write them, and he has nothing to do with anything I've said. I don't even pay attention to him.
You, on the other hand, offer nothing. Zip. Zilch. Except yelling, of course. Thanks for the respect. I appreciate your flying off the handle for no valid reason.
The primary process is for gathering data. Party leaders look at that data in determining the nominee. That's how Barack has gotten to where he is today. What is so hard to accept about his weaknesses? He does have them.
May 9, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is telling those Reagan Democrats that they should continue to vote as WHITE very WHITE only WHITE people vote and where do you find a party full of only WHITE people -- the REPUBLICAN PARTY.
May 9, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't even read this. Something about "white." The rest is static.
May 9, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the candidate who has the potential to move us to the left again like FDR did. This is the election that can switch the direction of the ratchet.
May 9, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am working class white. Obama has inspired many of us and split our votes with Clinton. He won them in some states and she in others. It is her lie and yours that he cannote earn our votes.
What kind of credit was she giving the voters when she hawked McCain's plan to give oil companies another break by repealing the gas tax for the summer. She thinks we are so stupid that we do not know that she is selling snake oil. We proved her wrong at the polls.
May 9, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry, I eleaborate a little in my response to Jormungand above.
You may be a working class white Obama supporter, but here are two references about Appalachian voters who don't support Obama. If you look at the maps from the articles (as well as at CNN's state-by-state maps), you can see where Clinton's strength lies with that "working class" white demographic. Obama has not broken through, and he likely won't win them in WV or KY, either.
May 9, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
He closes with her over time in each of those states. You and Sen Clinton are working under the false asumption that because some one voted for her they will chose McCain in the fall if she is not the nominee. That is an unsuportable assumption.
May 9, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't read my links.
I read your post. The least you could do is respond in kind. Thanks.
May 9, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My response was that he polled closer and closer to Her as election day approaced in each of these places. The articles you linked to say nothing that contradicts this. He has from now untill November to keep selling himself and improving his performance there.
May 9, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what? Pre-election polls won't cut it in Nov.
Look at CNN's post-vote maps for every single state I listed. It's an amazing visual. You don't even have to read anything, just look at the maps. Appalachia is solid Clinton country.
Go ahead. Prove me wrong with some actual facts.
May 9, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must appologize. I should not have allowed myeself to be part of an argument about her relative weaknesses or strengths. It is irrelevent now. He is our candidate.
May 9, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
she is trying to get votes.
after that those people mean nothing to her.
so dont give her nobel motives.
she doesnt have any.
May 9, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're wrong on so many levels beginning with the fact that Hillary is a hawk neoliberal like Joe Leiberman and would be a Margaret Thatcher.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080506_robert_scheer_may_7_here_come_the_hawks/
May 9, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're always wrong, amber.
May 9, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is a hawk who thinks that we prove how tough we are by being militaristic. She would definitly not have the real toughness to lead us away from military confrontation.
May 9, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has more toughness than all of us combined.
You guys don't need to argue that she's a hawk anymore. Catch up already!
May 9, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is a wuss ready to cave to peer presure on matters both great and small. She showed it with her vote for the war and her shot of wiskey.
May 9, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought she was a hawk. Or are you saying she's a wuss-hawk? Is that the term for a girl chicken-hawk?
May 9, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being a hawk who is ready to send others to fight has not one thing to do with personal toughness. You have bought the lie that it does.
May 10, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's a fucking racist. If Obama made the same remarks and switched the word white to men he'd be called a sexist by all of you.
May 9, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for racism, when an African American Obama supporter harasses a pro-Clinton African American by calling him an "Uncle Tom" to ensure those "spontaneously" 90% African American vote, is that racism?
No, it's just ass-hattery. Do you have some proof that such behavior has been occurring on a widespread basis?
May 9, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Color me skeptical that she's looking out for the white working man's plight. She's pandering hard -- offering solutions that won't work. She's hammering the gas tax holiday and war with Iran. That's the DLC plan -- act as Republican as possible, triangulate, grab power for a little bit.
You forget that this effort lost us the house and senate during the Clinton Administration. I think it is foolish to break it out like we've been doing. Obama's message is that none of this should matter, that we're all Americans and for the most part have a common purpose.
May 9, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yet somehow this message that we are all Americans and our personal differences don't matter is viewed negatively by Senator Clinton supporters who want to re-include working-class whites in the Party?
I. Am. So. Confused.
May 9, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The cognotive dissonance of clinton's logic is so apearant that it is amazing that anyone is blind to it.
May 9, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a name for what you're describing:
The "Clin-tone" - speech that is illogical and destroys sense!
Call it out every time you see or hear it! Do not submit to the nonsense being peddled in a "Clin-tone" speech sequence.
Ban the "Clin-tone." Otherwise known as a "billarism."
May 9, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary is in for a huge surprise. No matter why you think whites have voted for her in the past, no one in America wants to think they pick a candidate on the basis of skin color. Rev Wright gave whites a safe, non racist explanation for opposing Obama. But her telling them they are voting for her because she is the same color as they are will offend a significant percentage.
Others who just want to elect a Democrat will be offended that she is willing to throw the entire party under the bus when she clearly has no chance of winning. It has to be obvious to everyone in West Virginia that a vote for Hill is a wasted vote, and one that will portray them as anti-black. I think an increasing percentage will reject her for trying to use them.
When she was tossing back shots in Penn, it was cute. Now, its just ugly and devisive. If the Supers don't put her out of her misery, I expect white voters will. What a sad end for a woman with so much potential. She is pissing away her legacy. I was hoping to see her go back to the Senate and help President Obama fix the Bush legacy. Now, I don't think she could get a right thinking Democrat to followe her out of a burning building.
May 9, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you assume that because blue collar voters aren't voting for Obama, it is because he is black? Why are you stereotyping blue collar Americans?
May 9, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is the one stereotyping. SHE is the one saying vote for me on the basis of race, that Obama can't win because he isn't white. Hillary is the one polarizing the electorate on the basis of race. Even though her facts are totally wrong. The demographic she is yammering about did not vote for Clinton, Gore or Kerrey. She as usually spins the truth to shape the world for her own delusional ambitions. Her as President would be a catastrophe for the country based on that mental deficiency alone.
No matter what Hillary says these are the true facts:
According to CNN's 1996 exit poll, Bill Clinton lost the white vote (Dole 46%, Clinton 43%, Perot 9%). He lost the white male vote by an even larger margin (Dole 49%, Clinton 38%, Perot 11%). And he lost gun owners badly (Dole 51%, Clinton 38%, Perot 10%). However, Clinton won the popular vote overall 49%-41%-8%, and he won 70% of the electoral votes.
In 2000 -- when Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes -- he lost white males to Bush by a whopping 60%-36%, according to CNN's exit poll. He lost men overall 53%-42%. He lost whites overall 54%-42%. He lost gun owners 61%-36%. He lost small-town voters 59%-38% and rural voters 59%-37%. He lost the Midwest overall 49%-48%.
I'm saying it's a myth that Democrats had Joe Sixpack in their back pockets until that snooty arugula-eater Barack Obama came along, and it's a myth that they suffer crushing defeats when bowlers and boilermaker-drinkers aren't on board.
May 9, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is also a myth that she will earn more of their votes in the fall.
May 9, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
To think that there is not a demographic voting against Obama based on race is simply denying political reality. Hillary has made the worst mistake in her career with her comments yesterday on race. No matter what happens, the Clinton legacy is damaged beyond any respectability in history.
At first I thought it was a gaffe. On second listening, I realized it was purposeful. Incredible.
May 9, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am working class white. I do not think we are to racist to vote for obama. Anyone who can coount votes can see that we have voted for him in large numbers. Hillary is the one who thinks we poor workingclass people are racists. We are the ones who financed his campaign. We are the ones who delivered him many of his victories. It is Clinton's BS spin that says we will not vote for him. The shame of it is that I think she believes her own BS spin.
May 9, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is racist and elitist and cynical and manipulative. It should be offensive to just about everyone.
It offends me and I've been mulling it over and over to find a way to articlate why. Fortunately, Eugene Robinson has captured it quite nicely:
"Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry."
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/desperate_clinton_is_danger_to.html)
That's it! Apparently, her opinion of those "hard working white americans" she speaks of is actually so low that she believes they will never vote for a black candidate simply because they are white?
Rather than lift, she chooses to play to the lowest common denominator out of perceived self-interest without regard to the greater good or the ultimate consequence.
Cynical, manipulative, elitist, racist and very sad.
May 9, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
= the "Clin-tone."
May 9, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eugene Robinson is wrong. Clinton's not saying that. Read her words, not Robinson's.
May 9, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is implying it.
May 9, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's telling the party leaders to look at the poorer rural white vote, a longtime staple of the party.
Even though the primary is moving on to WV, the media keeps misidentifying Appalachian voters as the "working class white vote."
Clinton called them "hard-working whites." She means coal miners.
Eugene Robinson divisively says the "white vote." That's not what Clinton said. Robinson's the divisive jackass.
Yes, we will be sorry if we don't pay attention. Obama's coalition is not enough to win in November. Neither is Clinton's. She knows that.
May 9, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that we have chosen a candidate let's let the next couple or three weeks play out so that Hillary has time to withdraw and then give a few weeks for Sen's Obama and McCain to engage and see where we stand. How one Democrat does against the other gives us exactly zero information about how the Democratic nominee will fare against the Republican. I suspect that those who are predicting a loss for Obama are as misguided as those who bet against him for the nomination, but only time will tell. We are arguing from ignorance now.
May 9, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to do two things - first agree with everyone that Hillary's comments were terrible, and she has done herself immeasurable harm by saying them.
But I'm also going to appeal - once again - to all not to use right-wing shills like Noonan and their talking points to criticize the Clintons. We're all grown ups with words here, let's use our own. The crowing in the WSJ today about Dems abandoning the Clintons was nauseating - they are more than happy to watch Democrats fight amongst themselves. I certainly don't think it behooves anyone, whether they supported Clinton or Obama in the primaries, to give those obnoxious conservative jackasses the satisfaction (which the WSJ editorial today explicitly stated) of saying, "see, we were right about those Clintons all along" by now agreeing with their arguments.
May 9, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink