Skip to main content

This is from the political blog, Last Kaul.

I'm every bit as sensitive to racism as the next liberal who grew up in the suburbs and attended a Big-10 university.  By which I mean, I've rarely seen it in person and pretty much never had it practiced upon my person.  I am, however, aware that it exists in America.  To argue otherwise would be the height of folly.  It would be like claiming we never landed on the moon and citing as proof the fact that I wasn't there as an eyewitness.  It would be analogous to insisting global warming was a Green Party scare tactic, evidenced by this past week's unusually cool temperatures in my hometown of New York City.  It would be a non-starter.

That being said, I just don't buy the near-universal position across the progressive blogosphere that Hillary Clinton's recent statement concerning white voters constitutes race-baiting.  The exact quotation was, "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on" and she quoted an AP story that pointed out "Senator Obama's support among working, hardworking 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."  I don't know why Rep. Charles Rangel said, "I can't believe Sen. Clinton would say anything that dumb."  Or why Joe Conason over at would argue that she "violated the rhetorical rules" and crossed a "bright white line."  

This is not Ronald Reagan decrying (fictitious) welfare queens in Cadillacs and "young bucks" buying T-bone steaks.  It's not Richard Nixon running on states' rights and law-and-order in 1968 following the inner-city riots in response to Martin Luther King's assassination.  Both Reagan and Nixon were tacitly signaling to their white constituents that they would use the office of the presidency as a hammer against the black community.  

The only thing Clinton was signaling is the truth.  Blue-collar whites have overwhelmingly preferred Clinton over Obama, especially recently.  Whites made up 80% of the vote in Pennsylvania and broke for Clinton roughly 60-40.  In Ohio, she won whites 64-34.  In West Virginia, she steamrolled him 72-23 among blue-collar whites.

If you're Obama, that's a pattern and it's a problem.  If you're Hillary, it's a pattern and it's a lifeline.  Her only path to the nomination consists of the super delegates looking at the big picture after all the votes have been counted, seeing a contest that is basically a dead heat, both in terms of pledged delegates and popular vote, and using their position as it was intended -- to tip the scales towards the candidate they judge to be more electable in the general election.  Now, the odds of that happening are long, and the arguments against it are plentiful, but it's her story and she's sticking to it.

Paul Begala says the Democrats can't win with a constituency of "eggheads and African Americans," the old Dukakis team.  Never minding the fact that Obama is also carrying the youth vote by a margin of 70-30% over Sen. Clinton, it's still hard to imagine a Democrat winning the White House without at least a somewhat competitive showing among blue-collar whites.  The question is, does a poor showing by Obama against Hillary necessarily presage a similar result against McCain in the fall?  I'm not sure we can draw that particular causal relationship.  Obama doesn't fit neatly into any of the candidate molds we have on the shelves -- he's a new breed and his organization continues to multiply at the grass roots level.

But that's Obama's argument to make, not Clinton's.  Her challenge is to construct an electoral narrative convincing enough that the super delegates overturn the slight lead Obama takes out of the campaign.  The best way for her to do that is to point out that working whites make up a larger section of the Democratic Party than do African Americans and liberal intellectuals and that many of them will choose McCain over Obama in the general election.  I suppose you could hear a dog whistle in her "hard working whites" comments if you were so inclined.  Almost by definition, a comment is racial on some level if it refers specifically to race.  But "hard working" could just as easily be read as shorthand for blue-collar as be interpreted as code implying a comparison to lazy blacks.  Depends on what you're listening for.

The point is, it's a fact that Clinton is winning the white vote.  One could take issue with Hillary's argument that this is a pattern -- the breakdowns have actually been fairly consistent throughout the campaign, for the most part.  Obama did about as well among whites in Indiana as he has been doing all along, with the exceptions of the few most recent primaries.  I would argue that what she points out as a pattern is really just a reflection of primary scheduling serendipity.  It so happens that Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky fall consecutively in the campaign.  She happens to do very well in the Appalachian coal mines and hollers of southeastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky, where they've been spending an awful lot of time of late.  Basically, she's got the hillbilly vote locked up.  And pundits are taking this hillbilly vote and extrapolating it out across the entire electorate.  Which I don't think is an accurate reflection of working class, white America.  I would argue that hillbilly white America has a greater antipathy to the concept of an African American president than does much of the rest of white working class America.  It's just a theory of mine, and not one I'm about to go knocking on doors to confirm, but it seems plausible.

The PC police need to recognize the difference between demagoguery and fact.  When Bill Clinton compared Obama's success in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's in '84 and '88, he was pointing out the fact that African Americans make up approximately 50% of Democratic primary voters in the state.  Given that Obama wins 9 in 10 black votes, it stands to reason that President Clinton would attempt to lower expectations for a race Hillary could not win.  To say that a legitimate black candidate is going to win the South Carolina Democratic primary, and that it isn't necessarily a precursor for the rest of the campaign, is not race baiting, it's fact.

It's a fine line.  Lee Atwater, Reagan and Bush 41's "happy hatchet man," explained the subtleties of the southern strategy as:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.'  By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' -- that hurts you.  Backfires.  So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.  You're getting so abstract now (that) you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is (that) blacks get hurt worse than whites."

See, that's race baiting, in all its abstract brilliance.  Because the Southern Strategy was so successful, Democrats have grown hyper-sensitive to all things racial.  It has become impossible to bring up the subject of race without drawing politically correct fire.  Which is all well and good -- sometimes the race card is indeed being played.  But sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

And Barack Obama's problem with white, working class voters is a real cigar.  I'm not sure ignoring the state of West Virginia and the subsequent 40+ point defeat was his best strategy.  Maybe he should start spending some time in Hillaryland.  He might end up needing every hard working white voter he can get come November.

Originally posted to cakaul on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:24 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I gotta ask... (0+ / 0-)

    are you related to the former Des Moines Register columnist Donald Kaul?  I used to read him all the time when I was at Iowa State back in the 80s.

  •  Conason is wrong (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    She didn't cross a bright white line, she crossed a not-so-bright white line.

  •  If she'd said it more carefully (0+ / 0-)

    The problem is that it sounds as if she's suggesting that the only hard-working Americans are those whites without college degrees. there were more artful ways to discuss the hole in Obama's coalition.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you:

    by FischFry on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:30:34 PM PDT

  •  I think the term is dog-whistle... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vetman, my homeo, krnewman

    not race baiting. It would have been a statement of fact, except for the "working, hard working" part. When you listen to the clip, she is constructing her sentence quite clearly.

    You will note that the term for the SAME demographic used to be "blue collar", then it was "working class".

  •  Look you're going to catch a lot of shit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny rotten, stormon60

    I do think it's a thoughtful diary, but I disagree. No she is NOT Reagan or Nixon, but that's setting the bar sort of low for a Democrat.

    The problem is that she used "hard-working" and "white" back-to-back. I don't see any other way to interpret that particular remark; she has every right to construct an electability-based argument, but that particular line was poorly chosen (to be nice). The Jesse Jackson line is indefensible.

    Why is this such a problem for Obama? If he wins the same white support as Kerry (and does better among women and voters under 65) AND turns out MORE African Americans at 90% or better, what does he need the rest of the white vote for? I'm just being realistic - of course I want to fight for every vote possible, but the goal is to win and I think he'll have enough.

    "He's patriotic in sincere ways, and not in photo-op ways." - jenontheshore

    by Ivey476 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:32:02 PM PDT

    •  I think it's potentially a problem (0+ / 0-)

      because of the exit polls showing 40-50% of her voters threatening to vote for McCain.  If they did that, I think he might have trouble reaching Kerry numbers w/the white vote.

      •  Pay no attention to primary polls (0+ / 0-)

        Or at least take them with a huge boulder of salt. It's been a contentious race: you can't expect the average voter to come out of the booth and say the other person would be fine also. People are proud of their candidate! Things will simmer down in good time.

        I'm talking about Gallup from a week ago. The peripherals of this poll look great for Obama, especially against someone with the name recognition/reputation of John McCain.

        "He's patriotic in sincere ways, and not in photo-op ways." - jenontheshore

        by Ivey476 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:42:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If half of her 14m supporters vote McCain (0+ / 0-)

        the white vote will be the least of our problems. We'll be struggling with the "anyone" vote.

        Not that I see it as a possibility, but it's not as much about a segment of voters, as an astronomical number of them.

    •  Plus (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I'm not even sure I agree with me.  I just find it the unanimity of the anti-Clinton response.  

  •  It seems these "comments" come at strategic (5+ / 0-)

    points in the campaign, directly before Pennsylvania and West Virginia. There is a pattern, she is mining for white votes by sending the signals.

  •  I found it offensive given the context (0+ / 0-)

    Putting the whole comment in context it was offensive. The implication was that white votes counted more than African American votes.

    Furthermore, it was an effort to play up the issue and to drive a further wedge between white voters and Barack Obama. The goal for quite some time has been to marginalize him as the "black candidate".

    Clinton's strategy for a long time has been to create a self-fulfilling media narrative. You put this together with Sydney Blumenthal's smear campaign, her Strange Clinton posturing on the Middle East and her legitimizing of Republican talking points and it all adds up to one kind of ugly politics.

    There is a lot more that can be said, and a lot more that I have tried to say here on Daily Kos.

    I'll leave off with two points:

    1. Obama does not have a white problem-he has an Appalachia problem. This is unfortunate because the reality is an Obama presidency would do far more for Appalachia than a Clinton Presidency (I dissociate myself from Edwards' praise of Clinton). With full support from the appropriate people-Strickland, Rendell, Edwards and others he can carry enough of Appalachian Ohio and Pennsylvania. I have been through West Virginia on many occasions and think they are some of the warmest, kindest people-but they are right now, wrong. And they are not necessary (I'm sorry to say) to winning the Presidency. Yet they will benefit from an Obama Presidency. So I actually think this problem becomes moot in the general election.
    1. You cannot win the Presidency if your base is Appalachia. No way-no how. Appalachia is a region that has gotten screwed. But the voters, the money and the distribution is now with the college educated.

    It's not "Eggheads and African Americans": It's most college educated people, enough women will vote for Obama-I'd say he carries it 60-40 with women-African Americans and a whole lot more.

  •  btw: I tipped because (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    even though I disagree with this diary quite strongly, I think it is important for people who differ strongly on this issue to talk to each other.

    •  Hey, I'm an Obama supporter... (0+ / 0-)

      Have been now for two years.  I just think sometimes we get too careful and too carried away emotionally.  I think race baiting is real and this is, at best, borderline.  

      •  As I said (0+ / 0-)

        Put it into the total context.

        Sure, I've said stupid things sometimes and then when it was pointed out to me that what I said could reasonably be construed as offensive I apologized and had the good sense to be embarrassed. And I agree, PC gets carried too far.

        But this isn't about PC.

        She could have apologized. Instead, she stuck with it.

        Contrast her attitude with a statement that was intended and reaffirmed with Barack's attitude about his "bitter" remarks. Contrast the media's response to Barack's "bitter" remarks to the media's response to Hillary's remarks.

        There is an amazing double standard.

        And I'm still holding my breath, turning blue to wait for people to start apologizing for bashing college professors. We ain't rich-we ain't a huge voting block-but a lot of us are loyal Democrats and a lot of us do give money to Democrats.

        And why throw education under the bus?

  •  I think (0+ / 0-)

    that if I was just a singular incident, it wouldn't be a big deal.  Given the tenor of the campaign and the many incidents of "dog-whistling."  I think many dems are just in being concerned.  To say that a dem isn't as bad as richard nixon, is not a very good thing for that dem.

    "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

    by Snickers77 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:40:55 PM PDT

    •  Worse than Nixon (0+ / 0-)

      She has run a George Wallace campaign and legitimized the Republican meme. She has reinforced the anti-intellectual trend in American politics. She has helped to close off the acceptable range of debate. She has deligitimized every Democratic Presidential candidate since Roosevelt save for Kenneddy and her husband.

      She has not been vetted. I would bet that about 25% of Daily Kos diarists could sit down and map out an effective campaign of dirty tricks that airs all her dirty laundry-real or imagined.

      The only thing worse than a second Clinton Presidency is a McCain Presidency-and if it weren't for the Supreme Court, I'm not sure it would matter.

      That one thing may or may not be enough to make me punch a ticket with the name "Clinton" on it-even if she is in second.

      That's my view as a registered Democrat-not that it matters.

  •  Hillary did NOT "quote" an AP article... (0+ / 0-)

    she paraphrased an AP article-- the wording was all hers.  She made the choice to use the phrase "hardworking Americans, white Americans".  You will simply not find that phrasing in the article, and with good reason. Even our pathetic media would not use that inflammatory conflation.

    The only real question is whether or not her wording was a deliberate attempt to inflame racial resentment among West Virginia voters-- I happen to believe it was.  But regardless of her motives, the point is that Democrats are not the party that tries to win on racial division.  At least, we weren't until Hillary chose to go there.

  •  She's using code words to appeal to whites who (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    feel that a large percentage of black population is looking for a "free ride". It's easy to stir up racial resentment among lower and middle income white voters, Republicans have tapped into that resentment for decades.  

  •  Not to be childish about it... (0+ / 0-)

    ...but Obama started it.  

    -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

    by Rich in PA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:49:40 PM PDT

  •  This feels like a Clinton media release. (0+ / 0-)

    Obama has done fine with blue collar voters outside of Appalachia. Oregon, which has more people per-capita below the poverty line than Ohio is going strongly Obama. And yes I heard Hillary's quote of the AP article (that noone can find) and it was obvious race-baiting.

    "Good to be here, good to be anywhere." --Keith Richards

    by bradreiman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:50:23 PM PDT

  •  As a middle aged white female, (0+ / 0-)

    and the daughter of working class parents, I found her remarks offensive.  Being white and blue collared does not make one a racist.  Since I've become an adult, I've had the opportunity to meet people of all kinds from many different places, and I can assure you that there isn't a single group of people that's inherently more racist than another group.  To be fair, she was just repeating what's been said in the media recently, but I find all of it extremely condescending to a lot of good people who are like my parents...older, "working class" and living in a small town.

  •  Will the diarist name another politician who (0+ / 0-)

    explicitly cited the race of their constituency to justify their candidacy, despite being behind in the race.  Clinton essentially said white voters are more equal than other voters.

    "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

    by lordcopper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:21:13 PM PDT

    •  I disagree. (0+ / 0-)

      If anything, she was saying that there are more  white  voters, not that they were more equal.  Simple numbers game argument for the Supers.

      •  I'll give in to your point, then why is she (0+ / 0-)

        behind in states won, pledged delegates, and popular votes?  Evidently the whites aren't voting for her.  

        This was clearly a strategy to divide the electorate on the issue of race.  She is essentially saying that blacks and hispanics should not aspire to leadership as long as a white candidate is available.

        "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

        by lordcopper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm guessing she would say (0+ / 0-)

          she is behind in pledged delegates and states won because Penn designed a fatally flawed campaign for her, not factoring in the proportional delegate system enough and not campaigning hard enough and early enough in caucus states.  Also, assuming it would be wrapped up by Super Tuesday.  As to being behind in popular votes?  More people want Obama.  Her point to that would be that the race is for pledged delegates, not pop. vote.  (I know, I know, she's arguing all kinds of different shit now.  I'm not defending her narrative, I am just trying to paraphrase it.)

          •  So what was the point of announcing that she is (0+ / 0-)

            the choice of the "white voter" (which are more numerous).  Also, what was the "Black/Brown divide" meme that the Clinton Campaign was pushing before Nevada, CA, and TX?  I think the record is clear, Clinton will say whatever it takes to move the electorate in a direction favorable to her.  I will paraphrase Joseph Welch:

            "You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, Sen. Clinton, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

            "Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come." Victor Hugo

            by lordcopper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  But you are assuming (0+ / 0-)

        she would get their vote in a the general election against McCain. It doesn't hold water to me. If and I say if as the WV polls indicate that race was a factor in their voting, wouldn't it stand to reason that maybe they wouldn't vote for a woman over a man in the GE? Also, I will say this about Hillary, she is a smart woman. She chooses her words very carefully and that statement was a politically calculated move. She meant what she said just the way it was interpreted. She has given up on the African American vote and apparently so have you and I quote:

        The best way for her to do that is to point out that working whites make up a larger section of the Democratic Party than do African Americans and liberal intellectuals and that many of them will choose McCain over Obama in the general election.

        Big mistake. We may not have the numbers but what little we have is a lot stronger than you think. Fact is, that it was the AA vote that put Bill in White House, without it Hillary would have never had a taste of the power she so desperately crave. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but it is so hard for me as an African American to understand why there is always someone willing to go the extra mile to justify this type of ugliness? Is it because it makes you uncomfortable that even someone like Hillary could be capable of selling her soul in order to win this election? I call it being an imperfect human, in which we all are. If I ever attain the notoriety in which she holds, I hope people are brave enough to call me on my shit and not make excuses for my behavior because in the end we all lose, if someone doesn't.  

        "Give me where to stand, and I will move the earth." Archimedes

        by dtruth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  By the way (0+ / 0-)

          I just want to clarify, My subject should read "But she is is assuming not you are... :)

          "Give me where to stand, and I will move the earth." Archimedes

          by dtruth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:51:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think HRC is worrying (0+ / 0-)

          about a general election and McCain at this point.  She is fighting to keep her head above water in the Dem. primary.  I'm guessing she and her people are agreed that they will deal w/blowback later.  (I agree w/you, btw, that she would be wrong to assume many Dems won't vote for McCain instead of her.  I just don't think it's germane to her situation, in her mind, right now.)

          I am not uncomfortable w/the concept of HRC selling her soul.  As a matter of fact, I tend to think she has.  I just don't think this is a particularly strong example of it.

          •  Now that I can agree (0+ / 0-)

            with you on 100%. Her campaign is betting on the AA vote coming back to her and she is fighting for her political life. But that is what makes me so angry with her is that she is willing to throw away valuable votes along with her legacy in order to attain power. Its really sad when you stand back and take a look at it. I just wish common sense had a place in politics sometimes.... :)

            "Give me where to stand, and I will move the earth." Archimedes

            by dtruth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:18:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Not a valid comparison (0+ / 0-)

    When Bill Clinton compared Obama's success in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's in '84 and '88, he was pointing out the fact that African Americans make up approximately 50% of Democratic primary voters in the state.  Given that Obama wins 9 in 10 black votes, it stands to reason that President Clinton would attempt to lower expectations for a race Hillary could not win.  To say that a legitimate black candidate is going to win the South Carolina Democratic primary, and that it isn't necessarily a precursor for the rest of the campaign, is not race baiting, it's fact.

    The problem is that Clinton's claim was not very truthful. When Obama won South Carolina, it was highly contested. But he won it. On the other hand, both times when Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, the party's nomination had already been sewn up by someone else. In other words, Jackson won with the help of other candidates not trying as hard as they could have had otherwise. So, Mr Clinton's comparison doesn't hold water.

    Finally, when George W Bush ran in 2000, his father stood on the sidelines. He didn't embarrass himself, he didn't take sides. He acted like a statesmen they way a former President should act.

    Compare that to Bill Clinton. Compared to Bush Sr, one can best describe Mr Clinton's behavior as a clown. It has been truly embarrassing to watch.

  •  Here's the problem (0+ / 0-)

    The media narrative that Obama can't win working class whites is bogus. He can't win Appalachian whites who due to a history of anti Black racism simply will not vote for a man of color.

    Second, though it is true that a small section of (7%) of the electorate will not vote for him, HRC's priviledging of their votes is an insult to the members of the broader coalition that Obama has assembled (A Harold Washington Chicago Miracle writ nationally). The white working class have not been a faithful constituency for the Democratic party since 1976 and demographically the country (and the Party) is undergoing a dramatic change here in 2008.

    Finally, HRC's encouragement and revelry in this narrow voting bloc and refusal to reach out to other groups signals to these populations that HRC is one of them and Obama is decidely not.

    "How can I go off and join FRELIMO, when I've got 9 more payments on the fridge?" Mrs. Conclusion Monty Python

    by Sansouci on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:32:29 PM PDT

  •  Good Points, BUT-- (0+ / 0-)

    again, if you want to understand why non college educated whites continue to vote AGAINST their own self interests, please read Tom Frank's book What's the Matter With Kansas?

    "Cigna cannot decide who is going to live and who is going to die." -- Nataline's mother

    by Superpole on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:33:43 PM PDT

  •  Here's the problem... (0+ / 0-)

    1)she put "hard-working" and "white" together in a way that implied black voters were not hard working.

    furthermore, it seemed to me a way to exonerate the white working class voter from the label of "racist."  i think she was trying to say, "these are good, hard-working people who support me, not just racists." but it came out the wrong way.

    and 2)if ANYONE else makes the comment that whites are supporting Hillary, and the implication there is definitely that their support is race-based (if not, why mention race at all? the implied back end of the comment is, barack obama is NOT supported by white voters), then you get told to go "piss on a rope" or some such nonsense, as one commenter did on a diary i wrote in which i wanted to talk about the racism of appalachia.

    why is it that hillary can say, "racism is a factor and  whites are racist, so they'll vote for me," but no one else can?

    remember barack's "typical" white people comment that everyone was SO upset over?  remember how much controversy was made over that fact the rev. wright called white americans racist? so why is it that Hillary can call poor whites racist and no one cares, but if any black person does it's sacrilege?

  •  Clinton Is Overlaping (0+ / 0-)

    The George Wallace vote demo from his runs.  To compare, look at Edwards support.  It was rooted in the same vote Clinton is staking.  Rural whites, etc.  But, you never did hear Edwards point that out, and to try and expand upon it as a foundation of his campaign.

    Clinton pretty much inherited Edwards support.  And, since she is offering no major programs, or even has a campaign theme to help them, one has to assume her support is, for the most part, racially motivated.

    Ever talk to the folks who are now Clinton Democrats?  What in the world has she done to help them out program wise?  Ask her backers, hell, they don't know either.  But, she's not Obama.

    For Clinton to make statements that focus on race she is saying 'Obama is black, Obama is black'.  DOg whistle stuff.

    Edwards showed his class by making the focus of his campaign poverty.  He went to the very same area Clinton claims is her ticket to the nomination, didn't mention race, and told American we could do better.  Clinton has offered nothing but hollow, race based bull.  By doing so, she made it easier for people to vote against Obama.  

    As Clinton reinvents the Wallace Method, Edwards tried to bring that voting block back into the party.  He expanded on Howard Dean's 50 state strategy and tried to bring all Americans into the party.  Not just whites, as Clinton has done.  If anything, I thought he was much to nice to her today.  Clinton should be exposed for the race baiter that she is.  She is a ruthless, rotten hack of the lowest order.  Next to her, even Joe Lieberman can hold his head up high.

    It will be a great day for our party when she is finally sent packing by Obama.  If were lucky, she'll become a Republican, a party much closer to her racist heart.  And, they have a lot of openings right now.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site