hillbillary is wrong: race isn't the problem

In my previous diary [a HUGE loss for Obama is not a problem] I explained how a 30+ loss in WV will be viewed by voters in the rest of the nation: they will see it as a problem with the people who live in that state rather than with Obama.

That is what disturbs me about hillary's condescending analysis of "hard-working, white" voters, who must only live in WV and KY, but certainly not in Oregon, Montana or North Dakota, where Obama will eat her lunch.  hillary presents the problem in racial terms [making her, by definition, a racist], when the reality is starkly different.

For the majority of people living in Appalachia who have a problem with Obama, the reluctance to vote for him is cultural, not racial.  The issue is CHANGE.

Things don't change very quickly in the Appalachian Region.  Go read the report of the Appalachian Regional Commission: with the exception of the New Deal and the early successes of the Union movement--both occurring over 60 years ago--change generally correlates with deterioration of the economy, the ecology, and an aging of the population.

The Obama campaign is offering real change to America at a time when it desperately desires change.  Obama's success is largely due to his ability to express a vision of positive, though achievable, change to voters, who have had to swallow a lot of negative changes in the past 10 years.

In general, Americans embrace change, which is why advertisers are constantly tweaking their formulas in order to justify the 'new' and 'improved' label on their products.  hillary couldn't repackage herself as new or improved, so she went with 'tried' and 'true', except it came off as 'been there' 'done it', to the voters.

In Appalachia, been there/done it is okay.  That's not to say these people won't vote for Obama some day, but it may take 4 years of a successful presidency, a successful health care plan, energy policy, to win them over.  The clintons are political comfort food to these people.  But their allegiance is cultural, not personal.

So please understand that the clinton framing of the race issue with 'hard-working, white' voters, is just another desperate lie spun to cast confusion over the nominating process.  Coming this late in the game, after Obama won a plurality of 'hard-working, white' voters in many states, the framing is loathesome.  It is demeaning to the millions of white voters nationwide who prefer Obama over clinton, but it particularly is disparaging of white voters in West Virginia and Kentucky.  

The clintons are trying to convince those voters that Obama isn't 'one of them', but in reality they are trying to fool them into overlooking the fact that the only thing hillary clinton has in common with these working people is the color of her skin.  By purposely making these people seem racist in order to keep the issue of race alive, she is willing to risk the comity of the Democratic Party which has been the champion of civil rights for the past 7 decades.

Perhaps she should consider running as a 3rd Party candidate with Pat Buchanan, or perhaps David Duke, as her running mate.

•  It is a bit of 'reverse' race-baiting

  Start saying your supporters are racists, people get to saying your supporters are racists, que the outrage of the people being called racists against Obama.

  Which is one reason why I wish all these 'WV and KY are racists' diaries would stop. At a certain point, you only begin to promote white-backlash against progressive racially harmonistic values.

  by Zebras on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:27:20 PM PDT

•  you're deliberately

  interpreting something that's a little more than what she said. It's true that the bigger part of Obama's problem may be cultural. After all Gary Hart and Jerry Brown would not have done well here, either. However Clinton wasn't precluding any explanations in her remarks. She was just repeating the AP's analysis of which demographics the problems were coming from. And if Obama doesn't win these votes, it won't matter whether the explanation is 'racial' or 'cultural' or something else.

  by Wufacta on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:28:20 PM PDT

•  Hope is in short supply

  Obama's rhetoric about hope has to go down a long, long way to reach us, because we've had the hope beaten out of us. It's hard to trust when you've been offered treats, only to be smacked down again.

  by WV Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:30:08 PM PDT

  •  but vote for obama on tuesday, won't you?

    by carlyle4 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:11:55 PM PDT

    •  HELL YEAH!

      Since JRE suspended his campaign, I've been an Obama supporter!

      by WV Democrat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:00:57 PM PDT

•  South Dakota, not North Dakota.

  N.D. already voted.  But you're right Obama will crush her there.

  by ObamaManiac2008 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:33:58 PM PDT

•  You have a point

  alll the people there with even a resaonable tolereance of change leave - thus all you have left is....

  So of course a candidate saying "change we can believe in" will get little traction.  Appalachia by and large doesn't believe in change.

  by NewDealer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:34:28 PM PDT

  •  false

    about West Virginia, we are diverse, like many other states, Obama may not win but the spread will be smaller than what is being predicted.

    by arper on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:39:13 PM PDT

    •  That's what I'm seeing.

      I canvassed in a middle class precinct in Bridgeport, WV today. I'm going to assume that these Americans were hardworking because the homes and yards showed a lot of pride of ownership. The area was almost entirely white.

      While most of them were undecided (wtf is up with that?), the majority who had decided were supporting Obama or leaning that way. Only talked to one Hillary supporter all day. He was quite pleasant and I thanked him for voting Democratic; he said he always does.

      by merrinc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:47:05 PM PDT

    •  Well maybe - but I speak from personal experience

      a lot of it.  It really depends on what part of WV  you're in.  In the eastern panhandle its one thing.  In Canaan Valley maybe, but go down the hill to Parsons its a whole different place. In  McDowell County, Mingo County and much of southern WV, the northern panhandle, Parkersburg, Fairmont, Clarksburg, its very different and change, especially this kind of change is not welcome.

      by NewDealer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:56:47 PM PDT

      •  Right. Hence, the state is diverse.

        Morgantown and Parsons are as different as night and day. Ditto Charleston and Seneca Rocks. All I'm agreeing with is that you can't categorize the whole state (ANY state, not just WV) with one convenient label.

        by merrinc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:05:26 PM PDT

        •  No - you can't

          but you can make some generalizations that are at least in part accurate.  My experience in WV is that many of (not all) the people with gumption and ambition left in search of better opportunity elsewhere leaving behind those who either didn't want to or couldn't.

          That said I will also say that I have never encountered a state where the natives are more fiercely loyal to their home state.  WV inspires great love in it's natives, even for those who do move away.   They often come home as they grow older, return home in their retirement years.

          by NewDealer on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:11:30 AM PDT

•  good analysis

  The Obama campaign may need to modify or tinker with the change theme when campaigning in Appalachia.  

  But, I disagree that Obama just isn't able to connect with such voters.  I think he can because he can talk the language of faith and religion, something HRC cannot do.  That should be how he tries to relate with those voters and forget about bowling.

  by ROh70 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:14:08 PM PDT

•  I don't like Hillary one bit.

  But I don't agree that "race bating" or openly saying that she can win votes that a person of a different race can't, is racism.  It's just openly speaking something that is true.  Obviously different candidates appeal to different groups differently.

  It's gruesome.  It's uncouth.  It has always been considered very bad form.

  But that doesn't make it untrue, and it doesn't make her a racist.

  It makes her a prick.

  Let's pin the appropriate labels where they belong.

  by Silly Season on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:33:49 PM PDT

  •  it's racism because it isn't true.

    by Zacapoet on Mon May 12, 2008 at 08:27:31 AM PDT

•  I agree. This is an Appalachia problem not a

  white problem.  The one correlation that exists since March 4th forward and the "white vote" is that every state since then has had chunks of the state coming from Appalachia.  I wonder if there is more discret exist polls taken from the non-Appalchian parts of Ohio, PA, Mississippi, and NC.  I suspect that Obama's white vote totals are much better or perhaps close to Clinton's in these parts of the states in the contests from the past two months.

  by True Independent on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:47:37 PM PDT

  •  meant to write "discrete exit polls"

    by True Independent on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:50:02 PM PDT

•  "Hillbillary"?

  That's a cheap shot and undermines anything of value you hoped to say.

  Of course, when you suggest she would have Buchanan or Duke as a running mate you reveal your total asshattery.

  Meh.

  by homogenius on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:22:23 PM PDT