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.