Bio
Hi - I'm Maria, nice to meet you! I've been a Contributing Editor here at BlogHer.com since 2006. I joined BlogHer as a full-time staff member after...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

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

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 61
  • Sparkle (
    )
     




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

  • 61
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Maria Niles 5 pts

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 ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Megan Smith 5 pts

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 ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/msmith )
Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/ )
Video Runway ( http://www.womenonwomenblog.com/megan/ )

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

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)

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

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

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

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

PS

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 

Megan Smith 5 pts

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 ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/msmith )
Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/ )
Video Runway ( http://www.womenonwomenblog.com/megan/ )

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

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 -

Maria Niles 5 pts

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 ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

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 ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

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 ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

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 

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

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 

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

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  

looking for integrity 5 pts

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?

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

Nothing personal and more as an old joke

But 69-72 - other then what we called Farily Ridiculus in Teaneck - NJ had two real non teaching universities -- Rutgers and Princeton and that was it ( I used to kid the largest single export from NJ were college kids)

I think those from Princeton will agree that starting back at the first football game and never ending - neither the public school folk at Rutgers in New Brusnwick or what we considered the rich kids at Princeton ever loved each other ---- it was just a good old fashioned rivalry.

A rivalry that I recall with fondness and one that as I recall with some beer or other mood changer (and yes I inhaled) could get tougher/louder or more complex and contemplative

No way - however would I ever seriously put down the excellent education Princeton provided or how pretty the city is

And I bet we can both agree that the beauty of driving from one to the other in the 70s is now lost to population sprawl and a true tragedy

Say hi to the traffic circles 

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

Maria - I will go further - HRC on a relative basis is more evil then BO as a politician - more ruthless - but seriously - if put to a vote - i bet 99% would say that is the case... and no one has ever thought otherwise to my knowledge

Yet - BO is not a new fresh wind - he is a politician and enlisted a brawler and fighter in Axelrod - yet for months many thought he was clean and cleaner - the change in thinking IMO is harder for BO supporters to admit their candidate is not what he preached and has been hypocritical on this issue

While HRC has dodged bullets and flip flopped - again to no ones surprise - so bad but not as hypocritical

Re policies - other then a mandate here or there on Health Care and a blown way out of porportion difference on the gas tax this summer - the two are near identical and  needed and smart 

That is why when all the dust settles - all DEMS must in good conscious read the policies - and vote DEM no matter who wins and no matter how tough a fight there may or may not be

At the end we can not have 100 more years of war - a busted economy - and a ruined supreme court

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

Thank you for repeating the essence of how I feel - even if in many  of my posts i sound more radical or more reactionary or simply madder and more confused

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

Yes I can understand that AOL wrote their question and then they toned it down as it was out of context

and yes - since the answers are a combo to an emotional question and a good question I still hope AOL tosses it out and invites you to reask on WED

Now I ask you

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

And where is the question du jour - that needs to be asked - and many you can step up to the plate

When Blacks vote 90+% for BO no one calls them bigots - and I understand affinity marketing and voting - and maybe at this point in our history it is fully understandable - and as a Jew I can tell you it was not policy or speeches that made it close in FL in 2000 and not close in 2004 - so affinity voting is unerstood - even if not fair or democratic - it happens - its reality

But why when whites (now down to say 60% of the overall electorate by some counts)  vote say over 70% for a white candidate as may happen today - it is labelled ugly racial voting - whites will be called racially motivated voters in polite terms - and some will just flat out say whites are bigots and bigotry and racism ruled the day - woe is the country

So Maria -  wll you have the guts to ask - why the double standard in 2008?

This is not 1940 or even 1984.

Why if Blacks vote 90+% for a Black its not questioned or dissed --- and why tonight - if whites vote for HRC at 70 or more percent those voters will be called all types of ugly names and we will hear talk of how the country has not grown etc - as if the 90+% for BO never happens and is not equally racially determined if not more so at 90%

Yes this is a nunanced issue - and there are many contexts and subtexts and code and history - but on its face -- with much truth and reality --there is a double standard at wok

And do not get me started on Sexism - as a male one time VP in a corporate setting - sexism is far more rampant then racism - it goes by locker rooms not skin color

Maria Niles 5 pts

OK, this is getting off the topic of the post and the comment is becoming unbearably skinny ;) So, tell you what, I would love to have this discussion with you over on my blog. I'll work on getting my comment set up as a post and ping you.

Because I'd like to have this discussion and see if we can figure out where the disconnect is. It's going to be important for Democrats to have.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

lauriewrites 5 pts

In fact, as an early Clinton supporter, I was listening especially hard to what Obama had to say. I think Denise has said the same thing before (I can't quote it...sorry.) I wanted to understand what the deal was, what he was going to do that was so great - beyond what I saw as very vague if inspiring rhetoric.

(That was several months ago, so I know things have become by necessity much more specific now.)

And when people I admire are so vehemently behind someone and I just don't get it, I try really hard to pay attention.

Laurie

Maria Niles 5 pts

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 ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

Just the Facts, Ma'am?" It's like saying to a suspect, "When did you start raping your daughter?" even before he's gone to trial.

Your sensationalist analogy is inaccurate. My headline refers to the defense of her statement from Clinton and her surrogates. Clinton said "everybody knows that" as though she were just stating simple facts. Her surrogates and supportive pundits continue to repeat that "it's just fact."

It would be just fact if she said that certain segments of white voters more voted for her than for Obama. And that would be an appropriately accurate answer had she been asked about those demographic trends. Thus her supporters argue that it was a perhaps clumsily worded but essentially factual answer.

However, she claims she was "quoting a poll," but she added the characterization of white voters as "hard working white Americans." She referred to a poll taken prior to the Indiana and North Carolina vote which indicated that votes from a particular subset of whites would decline when in fact the actual vote indicated that Obama increased his support in that group and her comments came after the primary vote. Plus there is the problem that a slice of the white Democratic primary electorate is hardly a broad coalition and is not a group that in modern political history elects Democratic presidents. Thus, many saw it as race baiting.

It would be interpreted as just as offensive if Obama said that young, smart men were declining to vote for Clinton.

The question was "how will you get the nomination?" There is only one "factual" answer: Clinton convinces the remaining undeclared super delegates that she has a better chance to win in November against McCain.

In choosing to characterize her argument in a way that can be heard as "I will get the nomination because some white people will not vote for a black candidate" she opened herself to charges of race baiting. Her defense is that she was just offering fact. As her comments were widely interpreted as race baiting in advance of the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries and in the face of her declining chances to win in terms of votes or pledged delegates, I asked the question: were her comments about white Americans race baiting or were they just facts?

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

Has Obama ever said that he is not a politician or that people should vote for him because he is not? Not that I'm aware of. If some characterize him that way then ignore them. Other people's spin should not stop you from focusing on policy. What I think is fair is to say that they have different approaches to politics and as politicians as you've pointed out.

And you are doing a much better job than I am in not reading political comments because um, I've seen scores and scores of folks who suggest that Obama is evil.

My point is that statement posited an overturning of a "positive" narrative about Obama and "negative" one of Clinton. There are inaccurate narratives of both candidates of both polarities. As long as we agree with rejecting spin and characterizations rather than words and actions by the candidates, we agree :)

I also am not interested in telling you that you are wrong on policy but I would be interested in reading how where you think Clinton is making policy proposals that are so radically different from Obama that Obama's are not great. If you think Clinton's policy proposals are great then I don't see how you (or anyone) couldn't be almost equally enthusiastic about Obama's policies. The differences are mostly around the margins and in approach to implementation. The gas tax holiday is the biggest policy difference so far and since there is no chance that it would happen, it is a moot question.

That is why even though I am personally disappointed in both Clintons and I am not a fan of her political approach and style, if she were the nominee I would vote for her in the fall. The fundamental policy differences between McCain and either Democrat are too vast.

And, is it possible you haven't heard anything super specific from Obama because you haven't been listening for it? I truly do not mean that as a knock but as a Clinton supporter I suspect you are more tuned into what she is saying just as I spend more time listening to Obama now that I support him. Plus, the media doesn't really focus on policy specifics - when I was evaluating candidates I had to do a great deal of digging to find out what I needed to know to make a decision.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

Black Americans mostly supported Clinton at the beginning of the campaign, Obama has earned their vote.

Also, 90+ percent of blacks voted for Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore. So how does skin color translate into black votes? Black voters are the most solid Democratic block. And I am not aware of Obama ever stating that he will win the nomination because of black voting for him rather than Clinton.

If brown skin were all it took for blacks to vote overwhelmingly for a candidate we would have seen nominations for Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Carol Moseley Braun and Alan Keyes.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Denise 9 pts moderator

At no time have I, or anyone else that I've read, suggested HRC is pure - or that she is NOT a politician. She is a hard and tough politician and there is nothing pure about her. I like that in a politician - it's honest.

On the other hand, I hear a lot about how Obama is not a "politician" - he's above all that? That is dishonest and that's something that keeps me from discussing Obama's "policies" at all.

Is Obama evil - definitely not. Who has suggested he is?

Now about Senator Obama's policies being great - there's the bigger problem - I don't think they are. (And this is my own personal opinion, I know you are a real supporter of many of his policies and I'm glad and have absolutely no interest in telling you that you're wrong.)

If I felt that they were, I'd be willing to vote for him in the fall. Or I'd have voted for him already. I just can't get there. I haven't read or heard him talk "policy" in any way that makes me say "YES! That's a great idea - or YES! that's a policy I can support." Maybe I'll get there, and when I see one or hear one - you will be the first to know. I swear.

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

Kim Pearson 5 pts

Princeton '78 is in the house. Now what were you saying? ;-) 

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

Maria Niles 5 pts

You'll also agree the converse applies as well:

BO is not evil and has great policies

HRC is not pure and is a politician big time

They are both politicians (duh, they wouldn't [and probably couldn't] run for president otherwise) and they both have great policies given that they are close or identical on most issues.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

I envy you, Rita, though my pain is entirely self inflicted. Be grateful you aren't immersed in the weeds of political coverage these days.

And, yes, I hope we can all agree that both racism and sexism are wrong. And I will say again that I'll hold on to my optimism that painful as these discussions are, they will help lead us toward a path of erasing racism and sexism. That goal cannot be achieved if we don't talk about the issues.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

And, to put words in her mouth that she has not said

I started this post with the audio of what she said. I don't see how that possibly could be putting words in her mouth.

You are free to disagree with the conclusions drawn by a large number of observers about what she meant by those words but they are hers and she stands by them. And, again, nothing Obama, his campaign or his supporters have said or earlier statements Clinton, her campaign or her supporter have said means that Clinton isn't responsible for a statement that offended many.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

PunditMom, that's a fair question to ask in general but it is not the focus of my post. I'm looking only at this one specific statement, not the overall pattern and tone of the campaign. Anything that Obama may have said that is perceived as gender-bating does not support, explain or excuse what Clinton said in this case.

Personally I do not view the things that you and others have viewed as Obama gender-baiting but have been adamant that the sexist and degrading media coverage of Clinton is not acceptable, and that supporters of any candidate need to make their case in support of their candidate rather than tearing down opponents and their supporters.

I think a discussion of the sort Kim proposed would be worthy and I'd throw in the question of the sexist treatment of Michelle Obama, similar to what Hillary Clinton went through when Bill ran for president (as proposed in the Racialicious link lainad added below). Also, wondering where the suggestions from Clinton's supporters and surrogates (testicular fortitude, possessing more "cajones") that she is more masculine than Obama and therefore more worthy of the presidency fit in.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

Her remarks are racist. I doubt that she is a racist herself, but her refusal to acknowledge that many of the things she has said came out sounding racist, and the blithe way she continues piling racist-sounding remarks on top of one another, indicates to me that this is a political strategy rather than foot-in-mouth problems.

I think that much of the negative reaction to Senator Clinton's comments were driven by this perception. Given the scores of comments by Clinton, Bill Clinton, her supporters and surrogates that have been perceived as racially insensitive, it seems unlikely that at this point she could have said this as a mistake and that it must be part of a "hail Mary" strategy to gain the nomination.

I also agree with your conclusion:

but I do think she has paved the way for a woman who will be able to win without compromising her integrity in this especially nasty way.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

Jag,

The AOL hot seat question is not mine. I wrote the headline and post here, not the question or poll at AOL.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

Thanks for your kind words and I agree with your sentiments.

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. I find the whole incident (and some continued comments in the same vein from President Clinton) sad and disturbing. June 3 cannot come soon enough.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Maria Niles 5 pts

You make a good point, Laina:

The saddest part is, even though if I were American I would probably vote for Obama (but but most likely Nader!) I seriously wonder if a Obama presidency will help heal these wounds. It has to come from from the people, and I seriously doubt that will happen.

Electing Obama will not magically heal this country's racial wounds. But I continue to remain optimistic that, painful as much of it has been, the discussion that has emerged from Obama's campaign and the attacks on him will in the long run help us do the work that we the people need to do as you rightfully point out.

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Denise 9 pts moderator

HRC is not evil and has great policies

BO is not pure and is a politician big time

Agree. Does anyone else agree with these two items??

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

Maria Niles 5 pts

I appreciate the link and the support.

I also had a similar reaction - that Senator Clinton is far too smart for her words to be as Rep. Charles Rangel described ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/10/rangel-sl... ):

The statement was "the dumbest thing she could have said," Rangel told reporters before a Clinton fundraiser in a midtown hotel ballroom Saturday .

ConsumerPop Marketing ( http://www.consumerpop.com )
PopConsumer ( http://consumerpop.typepad.com/popconsumer ) (Politics, Current Events & Links)
Beyond Help ( http://mariax.vox.com/ ) (Music, TV & Pop Culture)

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

Ted, I think you are probably right about how she got herself in this mess. Unfortunately,..... This one scares me.

HRC in general scares me - but I do like the tough part - and I do like two for the price of one (and realise that is not a popular thing to say) - and I do think spouses like HRC learn by being there for 8 years even if no sniper fire

And yes - it appears you are not alone - as HRC pushes for the huge huge huge WV win - and lets say gets direct and dirty - she is losing support from others..... It is not clean one way or the other -

ottom line here - and where I post (not blog) is to note

HRC is not evil and has great policies

BO is not pure and is a politician big time

And

Bigots and seixits are not my audience - they are there and it will slowly get better I beieve

My audience is liberals who IMO do not give HRC a fair shake - as in KO who I loved but stopped watching -- vs CM who has beome more nuanced and interesting as his romaticism for politics grows and show

Good health to all and no matter what - vote DEM

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

Ok - I see your Yale and raise one Rutgers and one U of C (and we did have a few choice words at Rutgers in NJ in the 70s for those at Princeton - white black male female - no code needed)

Pre SC - what did HRC or BC do that was racist? 

looking for integrity 5 pts

Ted, I think you are probably right about how she got herself in this mess. Unfortunately, when she did it she lost this 65-year-old white female who would love to vote for the HRC I used to know. This one scares me.

Rita Arens 7 pts

I realize this is a heated argument, and I haven't educated myself well enough on what she said now and in recent weeks to speak to what caused this firestorm.

However, I find real beauty in the fact that everyone here agrees that every voter in this country should be and is equal. From that foundation, we should be able to come up with a decent president one way or another.

Surrender, Dorothy ( http://surrenderdorothy.typepad.com )- When I was your age, we just let them ride in the back window.

Rita Arens is a contributing editor for BlogHer -- Mommy & Family.

looking for integrity 5 pts

Ted, us female Yalies learn to speak in code when necessary. She doesn't use N words or speak directly but comments like her recent "Hard working Americans, white Americans" go out without much cover. Barack Obama was black and Hillary Clinton was white when she had the majority of black votes, before South Carolina. That changed because black voters know the code even better than white voters. And yes, he had to learn to be a successful black politician just as she had to learn to be a successful white politician. That is not the problem.  The problem is that she is going out of her way to appeal to people who are opposed to black people, not people who think a woman can be president.

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

You may be right - but my impression is that it took about till the 7th inning for HRC to start talking like that

Now is that the ugleeee HRC - win at all cost?

Or is that factual?

Or is that an HRC who sees Blacks voting against her and is trying to line up women or seniors or hispanics or whites to counter that solid block? 

No doubt HRC is saying things that are near ugly or ugly. But I posit she did not start that way and it has only been a short time that she has talked that way

Again - that does not excuse ugliness -

And it is not an attempt to rationalise it

For me - I wonder out loud - and believe - it is tit for tat .......... that the Clintons - right or wrong - having felt race was used against them - have responded in kind

For sure HRC tossed a ton of different mud at BO as that is her style and always has been. i am not arguing she is clean or even nice.

I am suggesting people look around - as to when race "courting" or baiting entered the contest (and it was NOT BC in SC - that was weeks later)

And I am suggesting that it might be possible that HRC is using race, at this very late point - IN RESPONSE - to earlier actions by BO and to the voting patterns of a minority

looking for integrity 5 pts

Ted, I knew what she meant about LBJ and she was right, from my perspective. But she said it clumsily and I also know how it was going to sound to Black people. It was the equivalent of saying a woman gets a little emotional at that time of the month. As a woman, I know it's true. I also know it's irrelevant and people only say it when they are trying to make the point that a woman should never be in power. What she meant was that neither LBJ nor MLK could have made the voting rights bill pass without the other. All she needed to say was, "That didn't come out right. What I meant was that to get the Voting Rights Act we needed both of them. And, like LBJ, I know the truth when I hear it and I know how to get the law to reflect the truth and justice." The reason she didn't is because some of the Obama people would have chuckled "She said it herself. She's LBJ and he's MLK." That's a cheap shot, but she wasn't going to allow it, so she set a pattern of appealing to racists. It would have been so easy to get out of it, but she just plain doesn't have the courage. And, in my book, the fact that she would rather appeal to racists than tell the truth is a great flaw.

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

RE HRC and "her strategy seems clearly based on race to me"

I can not agree. At first - HRC never ever mentioned race as she wanted to get a reasonable share of the Black vote.

Might it be when it became clear - for whatever reason - that she could not get more then 10% of the Black vote that she shifted and aimed at the vote hardest for BO to get

Which was the first - the so called HRC racisl strategy or the BO AXELROD racial strategy? 

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

And while you remember about GW

Remember that BO got his ask kicked by BR in the run for a Congressional seat - and then became more black in a public way.

And while you have your memory on - Remember that the articles in the NYT and other liberal media whan the race for Dem Nominee began were most often - Is BO Black enough?

Is there some correlation with the timing of those stories - and how BO was campaigning - and which primaries were first and second?

Not an accusation - just an observation of how a smart Chicago politician learned his lessons well - and how his campaign positioned him at first and then repositioned him as needed

Agaiin - same is true for HRC and all politicans - I just want to keep the balance - No one here has clean hands 

looking for integrity 5 pts

Ted, Barack doesn't play the race card when he appeals to a black constituency any more than Hillary does when she goes out of her way to appeal to women. And it is not racist of her to say that his antiwar record is thin. It is, and she is right to point it out. But time after time she has made remarks like "...the hardworking Americans, the white Americans...are for me.,," and she has never said "whoops. That didn't quite come out the way I meant it to." It has happened so often that I can only conclude that it is a racist strategy, although I don't believe for a moment that she, personally, is a racist. She is, however, sending signal after signal to racists that it is safe to vote for her. It is calculated and it is more despicable  than if she were a racist herself. That would just show her to be stupid and bigoted. Those are faults that are either too bad or curable by education. Pandering for power is terminal character cancer. I regret it for my sake as well as hers and yours. As a white woman in my 60s I would love to vote for her, but I would hate myself in the morning.

Kim Pearson 5 pts

Can we have some data to go with that accusation, please? The las time I asked, I was referred to his reference to Clinton having tea as First Lady, and another remark about her getting upset periodically upset. I thought his dismissal of her experiene at First Lady was cavalier at the time, and said so.

At the same time, I think she oversold her experience, and she really hurt herself with the exaggerated anecdote about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia. I also thought there was a curiously masculinist tone to her "why can't he close the deal" jibe at Obama right after the Pennsylvania primary.

At the same time, I wonder what folks think about Prof. Melissa Harris Lacewell's accusation that Sen. Clinton has pulled a "Scarlett O'Hara" ( http://www.theroot.com/id/44696 )act, and that is what has alienated many women of color?Can we talk about the people who were calling Clinton's communications style "masculine" and Obama's "feminine?" Is that meaningful or useful? 

When all is said and done is what I want to know about the gender issue. What does Sen. Clinton's experience teach us about what women politicians have to do to win at this level? What are we learning about the power of women voters in this campaign? Finally, is there a way for women to combat the kind of very real sexism that Clinton has experienced and the very real racism that Obama has experienced while respecting the very real differences among us? I ask this not just in reference to this campaign, but for the next strong candidate who comes along who isn't a rich, white, well-connected straight Protestant man, as most our Presidents have been.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

Ted in Chicago 5 pts

Everthing I reported (other then my opinion) is public record. Do you dispute that BO blamed it on seniors? Do you dispute what BO said about how he would have voted? Do you dispute how I described the BC discussion of anti war support or lack there of by Barack? Which part do you think needs a fact check

There are parts that are clearly my opinnion - my sense of reality based on how I heard and saw things evolve - that I can not prove - it is opinion. 

I sugest that the problem - or the reality of humans -is that in the case of BO vs HRC there are two sets of ears out there. We hear the exact same words in different ways

E.G.

As i said above - I hear the Clintons say - it took a great leader and courageous man AND the president (at that time an old tough White LBJ) to work as a team

Others hear it as - It took a white man to finish a black man's job. We I guess can argue if BC sent out a morse code message to whites - but there is no arguing what was said - how it was heard two different ways.

I can not get into your head or into the heads of those who heard it that way. And like wise you can not get into my head etc.

What I am saying is I heard it differently - the same words that are in print and on youtube - being heard two (or more) different ways

I do not see a lot to so call prove - or dissporve - much is fact - in papers and on youtube and much  is my opinion. 

Too many people are already using facts to support opinions and opinions to create false facts

I simply ask that those who disagree with me- read and hear what i have said -  and consider it for at least 5 minutes before dismissing it or labeling me.

Lies Damn Lies and Statistics

Lots of foot notes and citations do not create truth - in a world of gray. 

Good health to all and vote DEM

looking for integrity 5 pts

Kim, as a white feminist in the HRC demographic who has been persuaded to vote for Obama by her racist strategy, although I don't think she is personally a racist, I would like to give you an Amen. Listening to her reminds me that George Wallace started his political career as a racial progressive. When he was soundly defeated by a race-baiting opponent, he vowed that he "would never be out-ni****ed" again and made sure he wasn't. I'm sorry HRC seems to be following his example.

looking for integrity 5 pts

I agree with you that gender-baiting is odious and there has been a lot of it in this campaign, but I have seen it from the media, not from Obama. If you are aware of anti-woman things he has said, I would like to hear about them. I am a white feminist in the HC democraphic and her strategy seems clearly based on race to me. I don't think she is a racist personally, but she seems willing to use race-baiting to win, which I think is odious. If Obama has been doing the same thing on gender without my noticing, I will stand corrected, but I am not aware of it if he has. Please enlighten me.