Hillary Clinton steps into the race issue again

... and comes up smelling pretty badly

By terpfan1980 Posted May 8, 2008 11:02:10

So Hillary Clinton gives an interview to the folks at USA Today and stupidly makes comments that make her sound like 'the racist's choice for President'.

To get the quote's right, I'm headed (and point you) straight to the source, or at least the source that had the words that will be quoted below. In this case, see: Clinton makes case for wide appeal in USA Today (or, in Hillary's case, perhaps it's Racism in USA Today.

Here's a few choice words from same:

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.

"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's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions. The Obama campaign, looking toward locking up the nomination, stepped up pressure on superdelegates who have the decisive votes in their race.

In both states, Clinton won six of 10 white voters, according to surveys of people as they left polling places.

More stupidity and hole digging by Hillary here:

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that in Indiana, Obama split working-class voters with Clinton and won a higher percentage of white voters than in Ohio in March. He said Obama will be the strongest nominee because he appeals "to Americans from every background and all walks of life. These statements from Sen. Clinton are not true and frankly disappointing."

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."

It doesn't take long for Clinton statements to be picked apart by folks with a better political pedigree than I have:

Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton's comment was a "poorly worded" variation on the way analysts have been "slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms."

However, he said her primary support doesn't prove she's more electable. Either Democrat will get "the vast majority" of the other's primary election votes in a general election, he said.

Smart man that Larry Sabato (who I actually have the pleasure of hearing/seeing on a regular enough basis since he's local to the D.C. area and appears on TV there frequently, on radio even more frequently...)

He is absolutely correct though that with few exceptions the Democratic nominee, whether Obama or Clinton, is likely to pick up the vast majority of support of the other candidate from the campaign season, or at least they would in most years. This year though, uh, wait, not so fast... it might be a bit different.

For the most part, I suspect it would be true to say that if Obama is the nominee a sizable majority of the voters that were supporting Hillary will still support Obama in the general election. Notice I used the terms sizable majority and not vast majority or nearly all, etc. There will be people that supported Hillary that won't support Obama for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest reasons they won't support Obama, at least for a bunch of the people who just never will support him, is likely race.

On the other hand, if Obama were not the nominee and Hillary Clinton was the nominee I normally would expect a great majority of his supporters would come together behind Hillary Clinton and support her. Notice I again added the conditional word normally to this statement. This isn't a normal election campaign and race is playing a huge part in it. Depending upon how Obama were to 'lose' the nomination to Hillary Clinton the amount of support she would get from his supporters could change pretty drastically. If the Obama supporters felt that she stole the nomination from him many could wind up sitting out the general election or worse for her, could swing their support over to the other side just to send the message that they no longer will be taken for granted and pushed aside in favor of the will of the White population.

As I finish writing this article I was on the phone with someone that I know is a die hard liberal. We were chatting for just a few minutes on how the campaign is playing out and both of us were thinking that unless there is something just downright radioactive out there to land on Obama that he has it wrapped up. My friend mentioned that he thinks Howard Dean has the right approach (not sure I'd agree with anything Dean has said and done, but that's just my line of thought...) in saying that how things wrap up really depends upon how the loser in the nomination fight behaves. If the loser bows out gracefully and really pushes their backers to get behind the party's nominee then the Democrats may keep the majority they'll need to win the next election. On the other hand, if the loser behaves like a fool and walks away mad, their backers may opt to stay at home in November, or worse yet they may opt to vote for the Democrat in Republican clothing and register their votes for John McCain.

0 Karma 18 Replies 4 Referrals

Shame for Hilliary, i had a lot of respect for her when she tried to Natrionalise your health service and felt sorry for the deplourable way your media reacted, however this time around she deserves no sympathy.

Perhaps the treatment of her in the past has made her this bitter, she certainly comes across that way.

So it's okay for Obama to talk about "typical white people" but Hillary can't cite an article that contained a true statement about the support she recieved from white, working-class voters. If she just said working-class voters it wouldn't be true because Obama is receiving support from the black working class voters.

So it's okay for Obama to talk about "typical white people" but Hillary can't cite an article that contained a true statement about the support she recieved from white, working-class voters.

It really comes down to how she (Hillary Clinton) talks about the issue. Race is still an issue that divides far too many people in this country and coming off sounding as if you are the 'white people's candidate' for the Democratic nomination is not wise at all. Pointing out that you have a broad range of support isn't bad, but can she really claim to have that if she doesn't have the support of what has traditionally been a large voting block for the Democrats (Blacks)?

Both sides have issues pulling in votes outside their own core constituencies. Obama is pulling in the vast majority of Black voters and thus far hasn't been able to pull that much of the older white voters. He appeals (if you believe the polls) to younger voters, more educated voters, and minority voters. She (Hillary Clinton) appeals to older voters in the party, and especially to older white voters. She has gotten very little support from the Black voters in this election because they see one of their own in the race and have decided that (a) it's their time and (b) that he is electible.

Despite Hillary's best attempts to sway Superdelegates with claims of being the more electible candidate, she hasn't been getting those delegates and he has, at least thus far. Even those sitting on the sidelines having been coming to her, and now thanks to what was called (by Sabato in the quoted materials above) a 'poorly worded' statement she may yet again be sending a message that may have been intended to pressure delegates she needed to support but instead does just the opposite because now people that would have supporter her will be fearful of being called racists if they don't support the other guy.

Face it, in a lot of ways what she said was code words for 'I'm the white man's candidate' and that statement is going to inflame and antagonize voters the Democratic party needs on their side. Not a smart thing to do. Perhaps she should have spent more time reviewing the code word book to come up with a better comment to make, but then again I suspect that the words she used were more in line with her own beliefs and that says a lot about her that points out what kind of hypocrite she has likely been throughout her life. (Given her husband's poor choice of words throughout this campaign, I think a few people have figured out what a hypocrite he has been as well. He's gone from being 'the first Black President' to someone that has made statements that clearly imply racial insensitivity.)

Loca,

Obama insulted typical white people. Hillary claims that they might vote for her rather than Obama.

One is a statement by Obama, the other a statement by Hillary. Hence Hillary is a racist. Is it not obvious?

Terp,

but one of the biggest reasons they won't support Obama, at least for a bunch of the people who just never will support him, is likely race.

Right. What other reasons could there possibly be for not supporting a racist, ignorant, inexperienced black man? The answer must lie in the "black", mustn't it?

This is at least what Obama's supporters will claim should Obama become the Democratic candidate and lose against McCain. Yes, racism is alive and well in the minds of many. For some it is the first thing to come to mind...

Personally, I think a female president might be a good idea. Whether the president is black or white, I don't care. But a female president would send a nice little shock wave through the world and make it very difficult for certain countries to maintain their sexist positions.

It's always been easier for the racist to talk to a black man than to a sexist to talk to a woman.

And if you really want a minority president, just wait for the future headline:

"The Progressive Union for the Advancement of Minorities of Ethnicity, Gender, and Religion are stunned when an orthodox Jewish man is elected president of the USA."

Larry Sabato is an ass. He hardly qualifies as more politically acute than you. He is just another tired liberal in academia.

Obama believes the US govt invented AIDs to kill blacks and all that other malarky that Rev Wright exposed, either that or he's a total idiot. You don't attend a church for 20 years and have no clue as to whats being preached there.

He's playing us all for fools and suckers.

Obama believes the US govt invented AIDs to kill blacks and all that other malarky that Rev Wright exposed, either that or he's a total idiot.

People listen to a lot of marlarky in church that they don't necessarily believe 100%, what's new.

You don't attend a church for 20 years and have no clue as to whats being preached there.

Define attend a church for 20 years please.

Not trying to defend Obama, but I know people that claim to be church goers and parishioners who show up so infrequently that they should be struck down for telling such lies.

I don't know how regularly Obama attended church, and certainly after hearing even a few words of Rev. Wrong, uh, Wright's words on some of those topics Obama should have been headed for the exits and disassociating himself with him (Wright) long before he did, but not being directly involved and not having been there it's hard to know what the truth really is, especially considering there may be ulterior motives to Wright's words and actions now.

On whether or not Obama is an idiot for continuing to support and/or defend Rev. Wright after the word first came out about things Wright had said, I'd say guilty as charged there. He should have blasted those words immediately and put as much distance as he could between himself and Wright. Very poorly handled and definitely made him look like a fool.

Define attend a church for 20 years please.

I dont know how often he attended, but he was very close to this man for 20 years, he got married in that church and had his kids baptized there, these aren't things you do in a church you show up at twice a year, for easter and christmas.

In the early days of his campaign, he described Rev Wright as his 'spiritual mentor.' Now to me, that's a VERY exalted label to put on someone. Heathen that I am, I will always, and I mean always be loyal to the man I consider to be my spiritual mentor, the one who revealed doors to me that I never knew existed and have been delighted in opening for the past 10 years or so.

Sadly, we no longer speak, due to issues with his current partner, but I will always hold him in the highest esteem.

If Obama can't do that, then his entire relationship with his 'spiritual mentor' has either been a lie from the get go or was tossed away in pursuit of power.

Neither sit well with me. It's a question not only of judgement, but of loyalty, and not being afraid to state what you *really* believe, consequences be damned.

Rev Wright did us all a favor. Obama can't be both innocent AND sincere in this situation, so he's either an idiot with very poor judgement, a hypocrite, or a man who would sell out his spiritual mentor in the pursuit of power.

Not a man I'd like to see as President. And it has not a thing to do with his skin color.

What was it that MLK said about judging a man by the content of his character?

I agree with Terpfan. So many people say they go to church, and don't. Not to say they aren't Christians, but they really don't go to church and lie when they say they do.

People who say they're Christians, but only have it come to mind every six months are not really Christians. They're the kind of ultra-low lay members. They may get a business card, but most people in the church wish they didn't.

He's playing us all for fools and suckers.

I don't think that's a fair statement to make. He's doing what every other candidate, well, namely Hillary, since McCain's candidacy all wrapped up, he's running the race to win it. They both will do and say anything they believe to win. The point is what you believe, and who you will vote for. It is good that there are two candidates who haven't run for President in while, because there have been other blacks, and other women in previous years (the entire country is behaving as if it's the first time). However, the way Hillary is playing it, she's the working class answer to the country because she has been there, down and out and struggling and knows where they are coming from, yea, right...! Now she's pitting the one thing she knows will get her votes, race, she's the likely candidate to go up against another likely candidate. Makes me sick every time I hear her and her husband and everyone else who thinks and talk the same talk!

What is it about us that makes us look at race first, then gender, then everything else comes after? It's how we have been for many generations and the media is there to make us not forget (not to mention all the other die hards who have been around since the dark ages)!

The wonderful thing is, there are more progressive people who are willing to listen to the candidate of their choice and make the decision for themselves, regardless of what others think. Whether people want to call them duffusses because they can't rattle off what they think Obama can or will do for them, and to add insult to injury the only reason why most blacks will vote for Obama is because he's black...yeah....we are all automatoms with no minds of our own and that goes for all the women who will vote for that woman too....uh uh...robots...just sit home and someone will go do the voting for you!

People listen to a lot of marlarky in church that they don't necessarily believe 100%, what's new.

ut I know people that claim to be church goers and parishioners who show up so infrequently that they should be struck down for telling such lies.

True on both counts! I don't go to church often, and I consider myself a member of a particular one. I know a few people who only attend church on special occasions, that includes blessing a child, marriage and even holidays!

Obama insulted typical white people.

He did no such thing. Now if you said "People lacking the integrity logically look at Obama's comments lied multiple times about Obama." then that would be a true statement.

He did no such thing.

Yes, he did. He even apologised for it.

He's playing us all for fools and suckers.

I don't think that's a fair statement to make. He's doing what every other candidate, well, namely Hillary

Forever - the statement quoted about Obama does not preclude your statement. IN essence, I think every politician plays us for fools and suckers! In that respect, I also agree with you. Obama is no different from any of the others.

He even apologised for it.

He did no such thing.

Yes, he did. He even apologised for it.

The only thing he should have apologized for was not anticipating that most americans not only lack the integrity to honestly look at his comments but most of them such as yourself are outright liars.

People listen to a lot of marlarky in church that they don't necessarily believe 100%, what's new.

Believe it or not, Simon and I do attend church about twice a month, but I'll tell you this...the very FIRST time I heard something come out of our Pastor's mouth like:

a) Black people are inferior to whites and are out to get us by any means necessary.
b) Blacks invented crack cocaine in order to addict white kids and take all their money.
c) The US govt is secretly controlled by the Black congressional caucus, the Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, and Jesse Jackson's 'Rainbow Coalition.'
d) The us govt is a terrorist organization, and as such, Americans should not only expect further slaughter (ala 911) but accept the fact that they DESERVE it...

I'd get up, walk out, and never look back.

Yet ObamaBAH wants us to believe that he's known Reverend Wright for TWENTY YEARS and never had a single clue in regards to the mans insanely paranoid and racist beliefs?

Sorry, folks, that either makes him an outright liar, a hypocrite, a backstabber, or a fool. He insults the intelligence of the American people by insisting he had no idea that this was what Rev Wright was all about, but I feel that insult is more than deserved--look at how many people (of both races) are still planning to vote for him.

Okay, Hillary is desperate, but she's still a realist. She is not implying that only white Americans are hard working inasmuch as it is obvious that the hard working blacks are for Obama.