BlogHer - Hillary Clinton on White Americans: Race Baiting or Just The Facts M'am? - Comments

Not just when we are on AOL

Maria Niles — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:17:04 -0500

Ted, I appreciate that you've respected our community guidelines in your comments. You are welcome to comment on any of our political posts, not just when we are linked from AOL.

Best, from another U of C grad

ConsumerPop Marketing
PopConsumer (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

I Appreciate Your Feelings

Megan Smith — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:01:09 -0500

Hi Maria,

I appreciate your feelings. And I do think the "hard working white people" was the wrong phrase to use---what, there aren't hard working black people?

As for the pundits, I guess I should have distinguished between journalists and pundits. Pundits will say whatever they want, wherever they want, but it's the job of good journalists to tell the public, after the fact mind you, who is voting for who. If there is a primary and once it's over, Wolf Blitzer tells me that 45% of whites in the primary voted for Obama and 65% of blacks voted for Obama, I consider that as part of his job: to give me the facts. But don't then tell me what will happen next week.

Pundits are different because they have much more blatant agendas and biases. As long as I know that going in, I take everything they say with a grain of salt.

Part of Hillary's strategy right now, in fact her only strategy left, is to try to convince the super delegates that she would win in a general election where Obama would not. I don't think it's going to work, but considering the number of delegates she has won, I think she's earned the right to make her case. I think what she said the other day was clumsy, but I don't really think it was race baiting.

I think politics always has been and always will be a tough game that involves tough talk about your opponent. In this case one opponent is a woman and one a black man and saying anything that is remotely critical of either one is new territory for all of us. But honestly, I still don't think this primary season has been nearly as dirty as some have portrayed it.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube
Megan's Minute
Video Runway

Thanks, Megan

Maria Niles — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:02:53 -0500

I appreciate you diving in, thank you.

I think there is some truth to what you perceive. I believe we are in uncharted territory to some degree in terms of talking about race (and gender). And, yes I think both Obama and Clinton are in some ways in a no win position. But I think it is important that we have these conversations because though it may be painful we cannot move forward until we have them.

Here's my take (and I think it is not an uncommon reaction)... I do think it was race baiting as a political strategy and while I don't think Bill and Hillary are racists I do think they are cynically using race as a political wedge and I'm disappointed in them for that. This statement was to me the clearest example of that. And just because pundits talk about stuff like this endlessly doesn't make it OK. Pat Buchanan pushes this spin and he is an unrepentant racist. Why on earth should Clinton follow his lead? I think we should want her to be better than the cynical media pundits whose job it is to sensationalize to get ratings and make money for their corporate employers.

I also watch The View (though I increasingly wonder why) and I saw the discussion you reference. Whoopi is wrong (and I was yelling at my television when she said it). Clinton was not quoting a poll. The AP poll did not distinguish white voters as "hard working Americans." Nor was she asked about that poll or that metric. She was asked a general question about how she could get the nomination.

Clinton chose to use those words to characterize white voters who earn under $50,000 a year and who have at most a high school education. Given the questioning of Obama's patriotism which has been to some degree premised on his blackness and the historical characterization of people of color as lazy and the perception that Clinton's campaign has been racially insensitive and Clinton's intelligence, I can't see that she chose those words by mistake. The perception of race baiting was further reinforced in my mind when she called this demographic slice a broad coalition and then her surrogate reinforced the idea that a broad winning coalition does not include "eggheads and African Americans" (and since I resemble that remark, I'm a little salty ;).

Additionally, she chose to reference a poll taken of voters prior to the Indiana and North Carolina vote when she was answering after the voting. The pre-election poll showed a decline in votes in that demographic for Obama when the actual election results showed that he increased his percentage of vote in that demographic.

Given that election results were known, given that referencing outdated and inaccurate data would only help support the notion that superdelegates should choose her as the nominee because Obama cannot get white votes and that spin will be able to be reinforced by today's results in Kentucky and West Virginia (even though it is demonstrably false that Obama cannot win in states with almost completely white populations) again I can't see that it was not strategic race baiting on Clinton's part.

Race baiting is a time honored political strategy. So, while you can give credit for Clinton for being a tough politician playing the game hard, I was offended because I'm sick of this style of politics and I'd like us to move beyond it.

Although it is difficult for either Clinton or Obama to talk about what racial groups are supporting them, it can be done. And I absolutely agree that we need to figure out a way to talk about race honestly and without taking offense at the mere mention of the topic. I just don't believe this was the way.

ConsumerPop Marketing
PopConsumer (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Dear Lainad re DUDE you make no sense

Ted in Chicago — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:24:44 -0500

One - thank you - makes me feel young(er)

Second - I read the below

You seriously need to back up your arguments because right now they make absolutely no sense.

1. Back up - I noted above or below (hats off to the blog keeper for putting this all in some logical order) that much of what I say is my opinion - hearing - observation - reading - of what is public domain infromatio and public news on CNN or Youtube or in the NYT

2. No sense - Well I could back it up with statistics and it would still make no sense if that is how you feel. I could back it up with annotated footnotes and it would still make no sense if that is how you feel.

Obviously you feel somewhere I have made a false argument. Please elaborate and i will try and make my thinking clearer and my argument sharper - if you can accept that I present it as what I hope is no too biased and educated informed opinion.

Title it YOU TED MAKE NO SENSE - Tell me what made no sense to you and I will visit tommorrow and try and explain my logic reasoning or whatever

By now I assume many of you who met me here can see my thoughts are aimed at the liberal middle but are often in semi conflict with each other as I see the world from my view - and my view is often gray (no pun intended)

Vote DEM and DEM and DEM again (We get three votes in IL but if its BO do not think I will need all three)

M SMITH

Ted in Chicago — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:16:14 -0500

Glad you decided to jump in

To what you said - Bingo - you win the prize - to my ears ..... well said - and I will take it for opinion and observation and impression - and one I share

Re the 90% of Blacks Voting for BO

Ted in Chicago — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:12:09 -0500

Unless I had the hard drive from Axelrod's lap top I can not prove his strategy - I and just expose what I believe - it is opinion -

I feel comfortable I am right - and I look forward to history to tell us the stories - after the election when a DEM is elected

Re the 90% - let us try it this way - as I were Axelrod woking with BO

If I were Axelrod and BO - I would assume going in -that if (when) I survived the first or first and second round - I would start to get nearly all of the Black vote

As I said before - I understand affinity voting and minority for minority voting etc. It is often not fact based or democratic ----but it is real -understandable and historically motivated.

Given Iowan and NH were first up - I would run a non color based race - loudly - as loud as I could - and then louder. IMO that is what they did - and if those who want facts need them - then do the archiving for the CNN and NYT articles back then - that were indeed mostly - Is he Black Enough.

Once Iowa and NH were done - and I did well with white voters - (are there others in Iowa and NH?) - I would push for the black vote to come close to 100% for me.

I would not do this with a black candidacy type race (See Sharpton See Jackson).

I would do it - as I believe it was done.

I would jump on any and all comments by white opponent that came within a mile of being able to look racist -and push the message THEY are playng a coded race card. I would shout it from the roof tops (but mostly with surrogates and innuendo) I would add in a dash of they are insulting blacks and are taking blacks for granted

I have re read what I could find of the LBJ/MLK comments and the it is a myth give me a break BC run on paragraph re BO and the IRAQ war. In my personal white man's read and ears - they were not racist --- and in my opinion - Axelrod was smart to use them and their proximity to possible racism to whip up the affinity vote THAT WAS ALWAYS THERE - without having my candidate call for Blacks to support me

That is what I believe happened - and what I believe was planned - and I leave to the book writers 20 years from now to show I was wrong or right.

The Clintons did not lose the Black Vote - after a few white location primaries - the Black vote - understandably - was there for BO to motivate and he did

I do not even dislike what he did - I would have done the same as a gay or Irishmen or Hunter or Jew

I do dislike that the media and BO supporters blame the introduction of race into the competition on the Clintons - and that Axelrod got be the DEM Rove - laughing behind closed doors at how dumb the media was.

All opinion- and all by one who will vote BO in a nano second - and support him with money etc and posts vs McCain

____________

re another post and the slice - yes its a slice that HRC points to that she can do better with

Yes no one wins an election just with that slice - but no DEM has won withough it since JFK

Call it bigots

Call it angry bitter people

Call it Clinton Dems

Call it Reagan Republicans

Gore and Kerry lost because they could not get that extra slice - Ohio or FL .... and BO will be in worse shape as the people in MI (the DEMS) know he was the one who stopped the recount more then any other

The map withouth OH and FL and maybe MI - is the map that lost for Gore and Kerry ..... and montana and ND will not make up for it

And NO I do not know that HRC could or would win OH or FL -- but I do think the demographics are more in her favor - and that i why somehow - someway - some of us still believe in the BO and HRC ticket

I use HRC and only two initials for BO - as I take BHO as code for bigots suggesting he is muslim - I do not do it as an eighth grade joke

It was my delight to engage - and I wish all of you well - and a DEM in the WH

And if the blog her will use WV as a title to attract AOL again - I look forward to visiting again

(even you Princeton ------ I read your bio and it is impressive and very NJ - said by one born and raised in Pateson then Fair Lawn and then New Brunswick - and then off to the wilderness of the midwest and the U of C - and the oasis called Chicago. Indeed my haunts were -- Hyde Park and South Shore - the area of BO - and I was night administrator at the U of C hospital and proudly the only white to wash his car every Sat morning at 79th and Stony ....... bye bye

Okay, Here I Go

Megan Smith — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:46:17 -0500

I really, really tried to stop myself from jumping in on this, because I'm exhausted---for non political reasons---but here I go.

My question is, can HRC publicly say anything about which races are supporting her without sounding racist?

I ask this because on yesterday's "The View" Whoopi Goldberg made what I thought was an interesting point. She said that HRC was simply quoting the AP article, and saying exactly what many media pundits have been saying publicly for weeks. So why can't she say the same thing without catching so much heat for it? Is it because no one who's running for office should say out loud what race of people they think are supporting them?

My opinion? I think we're so not used to politicians talking about race publicly---this situation is a first after all---that HRC in some respects is in a damned if she does, damned if she doesn't position. Obama is as well, but in a different way.

I heard what she said in the audio, and the only thing I thought was, wow that's ballsy for her as the person running to even bring the issue up. But this is politics and she's being a tough politician.

Was it race baiting? I sway back and forth on that one, but my gut instinct says no.

I don't think she's racist, I don't think Bill Clinton is racist, I think we are in a situation we've never been in before and everyone is so not used to that, that all kinds of feelings that we as a society have never explored in public are right at the surface and very sensitive to being stepped on.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube
Megan's Minute
Video Runway

HAS BO Ever said ---- YUP he sure did - over and over he said it

Ted in Chicago — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:39:25 -0500

The question was raised

Has Obama ever said that he is not a politician

HUh

Does a Bear Shit in the Woods?

That was the entire premise of his original movement

Although I can go BC on you and say it matters what the definition of politician is

But in common usage - to be a politician - an elected official carries tons of negative baggage

BO said he was not that type of politician and he has proved he most certainly is and is good at it -

E.G. I never saw those papers I sent in to the state legislature re gun control (that I Ted loved) - my aides did it

E.G. Rezko never helped on the RE Deal - oops he did do a 30 minute walk through and told me it was a steal. E.G. OOPS it was not 150K but 300K (for both of these see the Chicago papers as they wrote up his visit to their editorial boards to clear the air on Rezko and changed his story about 10 ways)

E.G. I barely knew Ayers (so what if I STARTED my run for STATE office in his home)

E.G. To the Sun Times in Chicago and to Cable news - I was never ever in the pews when hate came out from RW --- vs the Rolling Stone article he admitted to reading and the speech in which he said was I ever there.... yes

etc etc etc

YES
YES
YES

Bo told us - and college kids - he was not that kind of politician and has shown himself to be exactly what he said we needed to sweep out -

June 3 is not pushing out

Maria Niles — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:20:52 -0500

If you read my post you will see that I praised what Clinton's candidacy has done for women. I said that I am waiting for June 3 which is when all the primaries will be done. All I am asking for is what you just posited:

HRC needs to tone down if not eliminate any dirt vis BO - a few jabs - but no punches - and to finish all the primaries.

Her comments did not signal this approach. However, she hasn't repeated them so I am hopeful she got the message about hurtful they were.

What in my comment that you quote at the top indicates that I wish to dump on and cruicify her?

Could I ask you to read what I wrote before jumping off into pontificating about your general thoughts about the candidates, the campaign and supporters?

ConsumerPop Marketing
PopConsumer (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

I agree, see below

Maria Niles — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:10:26 -0500

I agree. See my comment below. They are both politicians and they share very similar policy proposals and both more different from McCain than they are from each other.

Just because the media spins a narrative doesn't mean you have to buy it, nor does choice of a candidate mean their supporters have bought it.

ConsumerPop Marketing
PopConsumer (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Not the discussion in this post

Maria Niles — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:05:12 -0500

The discussion here is about this comment from Hillary Clinton. What's your take on that comment? Did you find it factual or offensive? The LBJ comment, how black Americans are voting and sexism directed towards Clinton do not explain, justify, support or excuse this comment.

See my comments below on the black vote. We have voted 90+% for many white Democrats. We have not voted 90%+ for many black Democrats. The majority of black Americans supported Clinton and not Obama at the start of the race. She lost our support. The argument that black support for Obama is somehow bigoted is merely an attempt to deflect attention from how Clinton lost that support and an effort to not feel that one is being called racist when they continue to support Clinton.

As for the white vote, yes, the majority of whites in West Virginia and Kentucky will vote for Clinton. And, yes, some of those votes will be based on racist reasoning. But, many whites have voted for Obama. In many states the majority of some groups of white voters have voted for Obama just as the majority of some whites have voted for Clinton. So any argument that white voters who vote for Clinton are automatically racist is just and simplistic and inaccurate as the claim that black voters are bigoted in voting for Obama.

Your effort to ensure that black voters are called racist because you believe white voters are perceived as racist saddens me. It's why Clinton's remarks saddened me. As long as we focus on outmoded visions of racial divides and are unwilling to believe that Americans are capable on voting for reasons other than racial affinity or hatred we will not move forward.

ConsumerPop Marketing
PopConsumer (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Women who vote for HRC and care need to be considered

Ted in Chicago — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:04:32 -0500

I tread softly after mothers day and as a man

But I feel I need to comment on

""Senator Clinton remaining in the race has benefits in terms of turnout and organization but being divisive and further deepening the hurt and disaffection will only harm Democrats.""

The belwo are not my original thoughts - much akin has been posted by many analysts in many places the last few days

If HRC is chased out of the race - by a chorus of you are ruingin things - it will leave a ton of supporters mean angry and anti BO. Do those pushing HRC out and hitting her on the head each day thinking about BO and his need for her supporters? What do BO supporters think the women who support HRC as a woman will feel if the campaign is ended on a sour abrupt note?

So many BO supporters and pundits talk about the divisivness of HRC staying in - but do not figure on the hurt and pain and damage to the party if she is forced out by pundits and Bo surrogates. Many more women will be pissed - big time. Graceful exit if need be is the biggest issue of the day - for BO supporters as much as HRC supporters.

HRC needs to tone down if not eliminate any dirt vis BO - a few jabs - but no punches - and to finish all the primaries.

BO supporters should agree.

Only then will the women who wanted to see a woman get a fair shake be abe to see that HRC as a woman was not treated shabbily (seeing is in the eyes of the viewer)

BO I believe understands this and does not diss her or push her - as he feels he needs every female vote he can get and does not want to alienate any of them

BO supporters in their zeal to end this all - want to eject HRC - dump on her - crucify her - and are thus dismissive of her followers - and hurt the DEM party more IMO then HRC does by staying in the race for a miracle win - a graceful exit - or a VP spot -

So BO supporter - if you are sure your man will get the nod to run -please realise now - hitting HRC does not move forwrd the goal and likelihood of a DEM president or the first Black Presidet - it hurts those chances

Honest is not raciist

Ted in Chicago — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:48:03 -0500

Unlike the pundits who bashed her

I found nothing wrong with HRC saying I am flat out better - as evidenced - in attracting the type of voters who will be most in play in the election

I saw nothing wrong in what she said - how she said it or in her not retracting it. Was she out of the norm of what we expect polite DEMS to say - sure. But was there anything explicitly wrong or racist about what she said - IMO no - and it is only the pundits who IMO make it uglee for reasons of their own

Bo calls his Grandmother a bigot and its ok - but HRC says seniors vote for her and its a sin and a violation of everyting liberal and democratic -

I can not agree

Denise - re hypocirisy and policy

Ted in Chicago — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:42:31 -0500

Wow

We think exactly alike about what people think and or though and who really was shown to be more different then expected 000 and I choose different to not offend

Re policies - BO has a ton of them at his website

And he has been more honest about the need to raise the limit on income taxed for Social

And both are more anti gun then any PRES candidate can be and I like it

Bo would also tax incomes a tad higher on amounts over say 200k - He also would help a ton on HI - He also would be good for education (which is mostly a local issue) He also would be good on pro choice etc

Line up the issues - say the top ten - and you will find HRC and BO are truly near identical - with HRC now taking the populist mantle from Edwards -

This will become clearer when McCain is exposed as the sell out (Jones college etc) he is and how he is anti choice - how he is an extreme hawk and opposes the gov helping level the playing field for those not born to educated parents with books all over the house and expectations of a third generation going to college

BO I agree does not talk specifics because I think he is NO Where as comfortable in that thicket as HRC and he runs as new fresh wind because he can not run on a real track record

But moderates and liberals need to vote DEM for McBush is 4 more years of right of right Republican

What makes a comment racist

looking for integrity — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:41:45 -0500

Did you ask when Axelrod usied the reverse race card on the LBJ and IRAQ issues if that race baiting was bad for DEMS?

Ted, it wasn't reverse racism to read this as a slam on Martin Luther King Jr. It was a different view of, a different experience of, American history. I am white. I understood what she was saying. I have also spent enough time listening to African-Americans to know how this would sound to people whose experence of American life has been different than mine. Hillary started her campaign as the successor to the man who was often called "America's first black president," and if I knew this was a gaffe, so did she. She may not have known it before she said it, but she sure did after. The racism lies in two things: 1. not acknowledging that it could have been misunderstood without being distorted; and 2. making more comments like this and calling it racism when people had a different view of them. Ted, you get this. You have said so. Why are you still blaming Axelrod for the perceptions that came from a different experience of American life?

Hillary Clinton on White Americans: Race Baiting or Just The Facts M'am?

Maria Niles — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:44:30 -0500

Kathy Kiely and Jill Lawrence reported recently at USA Today that Hillary Rodham Clinton made these "blunt remarks about race" in an interview when asked how she could win the Democratic nomination.

"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.

Not surprisingly, Senator Clinton's comments have generated a firestorm of blog, pundit and op-ed commentary. Clinton has not apologized for nor retracted her remarks, and later:

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."

Unfortunately, Clinton's assertion is difficult to prove with evidence rather than conjecture, was interpreted widely as racially divisive and is part of a pattern of remarks from her, her husband and her campaign which have led her to lose support from a key Democratic party voting block that she has gained versus Barack Obama.

At Jack and Jill Politics, dnA posts data which indicates both that Clinton's claim is unfounded ant that her loss of support from African Americans is far greater than lack of support for Obama from whites.

Primary elections are not the same as general elections. Democrats have not done well in the presidential election among white voters for decades since the Republicans developed and deployed the racially divisive "Southern Strategy." Therefore, even though Clinton does better than Obama among white voters in some states (as Obama has beaten Clinton in states with white populations over 90%), that does not support her assertion that she would then go on to win among white voters in the general election. dnA links to Steve M. at No More Mister Nice Blog who points out:

According to CNN's 1996 exit poll, Bill Clinton lost the white vote (Dole 46%, Clinton 43%, Perot 9%). He lost the white male vote by an even larger margin (Dole 49%, Clinton 38%, Perot 11%). And he lost gun owners badly (Dole 51%, Clinton 38%, Perot 10%). However, Clinton won the popular vote overall 49%-41%-8%, and he won 70% of the electoral votes.

In 2000 -- when Al Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes -- he lost white males to Bush by a whopping 60%-36%, according to CNN's exit poll. He lost men overall 53%-42%. He lost whites overall 54%-42%. He lost gun owners 61%-36%. He lost small-town voters 59%-38% and rural voters 59%-37%. He lost the Midwest overall 49%-48%.

I'm not saying these are goals to aspire to. I'm saying it's a myth that Democrats had Joe Sixpack in their back pockets until that snooty arugula-eater Barack Obama came along, and it's a myth that they suffer crushing defeats when bowlers and boilermaker-drinkers aren't on board.

Unless, of course, Clinton is saying that she will lose less badly among white voters because racists would be more willing to vote for her than for Obama (despite the fact that Obama has increased his support with those voters Clinton believes will not vote for him). Nope not racially divisive at all. And certainly racist voters couldn't possibly be sexist and be more willing to vote for McCain than for her in the general election.

Clinton's latest remark is part of a long string of comments and statements which have been interpreted by black voters as racially divisive and have seriously damaged Clinton with the black community. Obama however has shown a steady increase in positive ratings among white voters as he has become better known. A recent poll illustrates this contrast:

The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.

Whereas the white vote has tipped in favor of Republicans in modern presidential election history, conversely the black vote has gone overwhelmingly to Democrats. When talking about building the coalition needed to win in November, it is the black vote Democrats need to not take for granted and ensure they receive.

After Tuesday's results from the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Clinton's campaign signaled that she would run a positive, policy-focused campaign through the remaining weeks of primaries. Not all observers quite believed that because of the overwhelming odds against Clinton securing the nomination at this point. Since Obama has shown no signs of having some gigantic skeleton lurking that nobody has been able to quite dig up yet, the only remaining option for Clinton is to succeed in portraying Obama as a scary black man for whom the majority of white Americans simply will not vote.

Prior to Clinton's USA Today comments, in The Huffington Post, Mike Barnicle wrote that "Race Is All the Clintons Have Left:"

Sitting there on the set, listening to the endless wrap-ups and explanation of the exit polls, I was on the verge of faking my own death on national TV in order to go talk to myself about the obvious, unspoken equation in the little there is left to this fight between Obama and Clinton. The beast that is nearly always there in American life, the danger that rustles the shrubs at the edge of our daily existence -- race -- was routinely ignored in the recitation of numbers pouring out of North Carolina and Indiana....

And Hillary Clinton, always ambitious, an over-achiever, tough, smart and resilient. And now on the edge of writing a truly ugly chapter for all to see.

I agree. Witnessing Clinton's historic, ambitious campaign reduced to appealing to the worst aspects of of some Americans is depressing. I was heartened by her Tuesday night speech when she promised to work hard on behalf of the eventual Democratic nominee. There are divisions borne of this hard fought campaign for the nomination and it will require her leadership and genuine support of Obama's candidacy in order to heal them. I had never joined the chorus of calls for her to withdraw but I had hoped she would since the math has been the math for months now. Tuesday night, however, I felt good about her campaign for the first time in a long time. Despite my loss of respect for her given her race baiting and attempts to attack, belittle and diminish the candidate whom I support at the expensive of making her own affirmative case for support, I appreciate that she has helped create a path for the next viable woman candidate for President, that she has energized many women voters in support of her campaign and that because she is staying in the race through the remaining primaries she is helping contribute to the increase in turnout and participation in democracy.

And then then came the words that seemed to imply that I am not hard working, that it is not my vote that matters in choosing the next president and that a black candidate cannot earn the votes of white Americans.

ColorofChange.org has organized a campaign to call and email Democratic Party Chairman, Howard Dean, to call on Clinton to end her race-baiting.

Denounciations and rejections of Clinton's comments are extensive. Here is a sampling:

Susan Duclos, Wake Up America, Hillary Clinton Plays The Race Card

Faye Anderson, Anderson At Large, Clinton: Vote White

Kathy, Liberty Street, Hillary Clinton: "Hard-Working Americans" Are White Americans

Clinton supporter, Eileen Smith, Poll Dancing (and also of In The Pink Texas), White Lines (Don't Do It)

Suzanne Anderson, Table One, Adios!

Shark-Fu, Angry Black Bitch, A toast from this hard-working American

Jenn Fang, Reappropriate, I'm White. I Should Be President.

Pam Spaulding, Pam's House Blend, White dog whistles no more

SusanG, Daily Kos, Gallup: Obama's Support Among Whites Equals Kerry's

Julie Pippert and Jen, MOMocrats, Interview with a white woman who is hard-working and American, but voting for Obama

Kim Pearson, Professor Kim's News Notes, Covering Race in the Presidential Race

Denise Clay, The Mad Political Scientist, The Candidate for White America

Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal, Damsel of Distress

Related: Donna Brazile takes on Clinton supporter, Paul Begala's claim that Democrats can't win with "eggheads and African Americans"

When BlogHer CE Maria Niles blogs about race, gender and politics, she does it at PopConsumer