Clinton does not seem to be getting that much flack for her comment to USA Today that she can win the nomination because "Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and... the whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me..."
While it made two of the evening news shows, there's been no big denunciation from Obama -- he seems to have decided to move on to McCain, and wouldn't profit from a white/black fight anyway. Some in the blogosphere -- while concerned about the phrasing suggesting that black Americans aren't hard-working -- seem willing to cut her some slack for doing nothing worse than stating the obvious:
TNR's Stump: "It's definitely uncomfortable to hear her say it, but if Hillary thinks white Americans won't elect a black president, is it so transgressive for her to say it out loud? Everyone in politics and media has been having this conversation for more than a year now. If anything it seems better than reliance on cutesy euphemisms like "working class" or "electability." I'm willing to be convinced I'm wrong but I think it's worth considering this before the latest "race-baiter" pile-on gets underway in earnest."
The problem: She is not being analytical, she is saying it with a purpose -- "white," twice, is not a coincidence. The purpose is to emphasize a racial divide as two predominately white states prepare to vote, and to get them to focus on the racial divide instead of ignoring it. If she has the values she espouses, she should be urging those voters to judge the candidates on their merits, not emphasizing the racial divide as her primary talking point.
Jack and Jill Politics: "This kind of comment is less a description than an agitator, it's meant to give white voters the impression that they would be 'disenfranchised' by an Obama win. It's a not so subtle effort to evoke racial resentment over Obama's success."
Or, here: "She is naming her remaining trump card, and considering our country's pitiful history of not frankly dealing with or discussing race -- aside from painful, fumbling defensive fits and starts -- we're left to deal with the fallout of a "poorly worded" statement, lacking a sufficiently stocked toolbox to deal with the ramifications of courting a vote with implicit and explicit biases. "
And, of course, the political situation frames everything.
If Obama is the presumptive nominee, he needs the party's second leading figure to urge white working-class voters to give him a second look -- not to go out of her way to cast herself, a fellow white, as their more reliable champion.
Comments (2)
The FAT LADY is sing it's all over NOW, But Hillary Soprano can't hear her. She is to busy running off with the mouth.
It is time she puts a zipper on it and listen to the FAT LADY.
But after putting in 11.4 MILLION DOLLARS into her losing campaign I guess it is hard to hear the FAT LADYS SONG.
BTW I THOUGHT ONLY BILLIONAIRES FOR BUSH HAD THAT KIND OF MONEY TO THROW AROUND.
Why is it alright for Obama or his campaign to keep stressing that he is winning 90 - 93% of the white vote and the young voters and that Hillary would not get the support of the black community if she is the nominee, but it is not alright for Hillary to state that she has won the white blue collar workers and Obama would have a hard time getting the support of this group in the fall. I think there is a race problem, reverse discrimination by Obama and his people. You tell me why 93% of the black community is voting for Obama. Do you really believe they think he is the best candidate or are they voting for him because he is black. Discrimination works both ways or did we forget that.