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







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

Submitted by Maria Niles (view blog) on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 21:44

Comments

 

You are so right

Hilary betrayed a nasty underside with her remarks. There is no excuse for remarks such as this. She is a bright woman and knows darned well what she is doing. I've linked to your post from my personal blog. Thanks for postng this.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool

Submitted by Mata H on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 06:31
 

Thanks, Mata

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:

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:01
 

Excellent post!

Well said, Maria. I am really happy to see such a diverse set of links and videos provided and that it made such a powerful impact on so many people. I think that when you cover this issue a lot of 'proof' is required to show how serious this is.  The sad part is that I question if Clinton realizes the voracity of her remarks? Or if she does, which she probably does, does she care that this will alienate her black supporters? You know, the ones that put her husband in the White House?

I can't imagine anyone wanting to continue to support someone who has just told me that my vote doesn't really count and for my Black American brothers and sisters, that they are essentially insignficant when in comes to determing who will be the leader in their own country. It's funny how many previously said how blacks were being paranoid with the 'race baiting' senarios that were being reported........ 

From my travels in the blogosphere there are a lot of 'hardworking Americans' who feel totally disrespected from this latest racial gaffe, and are thinking back to Bill's presidency and Hillary's past successes and wondering if their previous boasts of support from the African American community was simply a marketing initiative. I guess they got hoodwinked, eh?

This election season has really showed the true colors of not only the candidates but how long America has to go in healing racial tensions. 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.

Submitted by lainad on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 06:45
 

Good point

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:06
 

Good reporting on Clinton's problematic
behavior.

Well done, Maria - thanks! I think you've been pretty fair.

Up until now, it has bugged me when people insist that Clinton drop out of the campaign. She maintained a reasonable amount of competitiveness in a tough race - a worthy candidate would stick it out, as far as I'm concerned.

But now, I think that she has proved herself less than worthy. This is not the example that the future president should lead by. This is crap. I expect more from someone who would propose to repair the damage caused in the Bush administration.

Since the race will go on for a while yet, I hope that Clinton will pull it together and demonstrate some class, however it ends.

And for the record, though I support Obama, I think Laina's question is a vary valid one. The president has rarely been one to even address the damage that racism and prejudce have wrought. I hope that people aren't expecting him to bring about the enlightenment through politics. That is a spiritual matter (which I believe that he would support), and must be addressed through relationships, community and social reconciliation - not the White House.

-Atena-

Assumptions, Biases & Irrational Fantasies

Submitted by Atena on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 15:51
 

Thanks, Atena

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:13
 

Women who vote for HRC and care need to be
considered

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 

 

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 12:04
 

June 3 is not pushing out

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)

Submitted by Maria Niles on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 12:20
 

Always at her throat...

Your AOL Hot Seat question "Are Clinton's race-baiting tactics harming the Democratic Party?" is disingenuous and transparent. The question assumes that her tactics ARE race baiting, even as you ask "or is it 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.

There are two Hillarys (just as there are two Obamas and two McCains, and so forth). There's the Hillary who has spent her career devoted to issues of utmost importance to children, women, and families (no one on the left or right has denied that HER universal healthcare plan is better than Obama's, not even uncommitted John Edwards--yet people conveniently overlook this critical difference when in their uncritical support of Obama.) The second Hillary is the Hillary of this election, dragged down by the groundswell of activist hatred for the Clintons, and the vindictiveness of their mouthpiece, the liberal media (they've admitted as much). Hillary's campaign has made mistakes aplenty.

But the reason African American leaders like Rep. Rangel and Rep. Tubbs-Jones believe in Hillary is because they have worked for years with Hillary. They have not lost sight of that HIllary--the one who would be in the White house--and we shouldn't either. I personally know 3 African American supporters of Hillary who have nearly been brought to tears by Obama supporters, being branded traitors because they're not voting for a black man, and for standing up for their own opinions. Obama can stay "high-minded" because he has his surrogates to sling the mud, and no one is better at being nasty, vicious, and below-the-belt than an Obama surrogate ("monster," "cunt", "lying whore", etc.)

Submitted by Jaq on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 09:28
 

Let's not play that game, please

Jag, I'm troubled by this assertion:

Obama can stay "high-minded" because he has his surrogates to sling the
mud, and no one is better at being nasty, vicious, and below-the-belt
than an Obama surrogate ("monster," "cunt", "lying whore", etc.)

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you believe that the Obama campaign has covertly orchestrated or endorsed these statements by alleged surrogates? (I'm aware that a former Obama adviser made the "monster" comment. I don't know about the others.)

If that is what you are saying, then should Sen. Clinton be held responsible for the volunteers who sent the false emails by Clinton volunteers alleging that Sen. Obama is a Muslim and for the insinuations about Sen. Obama's past drug use? 

Unless someone has evidence of an orchestrated campaign by either candidate, I think this is an untenable accusation. 

 

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 14:41
 

Thank you, Kim

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.

Submitted by looking for integrity on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:08
 

Looking for Integrity

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 

 

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:20
 

RE AOL Hot Seat Question

I agree

The way that question was worded was loaded and ugly and unfair.

Apparently a bunch of us found it offensive and wrong and one sided nonsense.

It was changed.

And I have sent an email to AOL asking that the poll be taken off AOL - as the original wording was offensive and wrong and the total results is a combo of answers to a when did you stop beating ... question and a good one.

Glad to see some people can not be shamed into silence against ugliness - no matter its color or gender or purpose 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:01
 

Not my question

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:19
 

To Maria

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

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 11:16
 

What makes a comment racist

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?

Submitted by looking for integrity on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 11:41
 

Not the discussion in this post

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)

Submitted by Maria Niles on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 12:05
 

Meeting more in the Middle

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

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 11:25
 

I agree, see below

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)

Submitted by Maria Niles on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 12:10
 

And, regarding my headline

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 19:32
 

Sad but true

I am sad that Hillary has chosen to use such ugly tactics to achieve something for which she is so well qualified. I was at Yale when she was, a graduate student living in the law school. I share her feminism, her aspirations, her hope. I admire her willingness to fight and her determination to win.

 Unfortunately, she is determined to win at any cost and has shown, at best, an insensitivity to race that would make it impossible for me to ever vote for her in the future. 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. She seems willing to do whatever it takes to win and try to repair the damage later. Sorry, Hillary. Been there, had that done to me, and the deepest lesson feminism taught me is not to take that kind of crap from anybody. I am sorry to lose her, 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.

Submitted by looking for integrity on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 10:41
 

Strategy vs. perception

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:24
 

How about gender-baiting??

I'm just saying ... it goes both ways, people just don't want to see that Obama is doing similar things with gender.  Why don't we see that as ugly, as well?

 PunditMom, Contributing Editor, Politics & News

Also at MOMocrats 

Submitted by PunditMom on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 14:09
 

gender baiting

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.

Submitted by looking for integrity on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:02
 

Chicken and the Egg

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? 

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:24
 

Neither did Nixon and Agnew

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.

Submitted by looking for integrity on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:47
 

looking for -- SC

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? 

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 16:42
 

Watch out now, Ted! ;-)

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

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:52
 

Hi Princeton

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 

 

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 11:33
 

Can we have real talk about the gender
politics?

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" 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|Professor Kim|

Submitted by Kim Pearson on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:18
 

Not the topic of discussion here

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:34
 

I hate playing tit-for-tat but I just
couldn't help myself......

Pundit Mom, but you should check out this post from Racialicious:  and this Wiki.

 

Submitted by lainad on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 14:31
 

You ar Wrong - So Wrong - and One Sided

It is becoming popular to blast HRC for talking about race. And, to put words in her mouth that she has not said – and to attribute motives and schemes that are often the fantasy of the accuser and not those of HRC.

I wonder if some people feel better about themeselves when they call HRC a racist (directly or indirectly) --- that somehow that makes them feel less racist or sexist.

I for one believe the case is evident that BO played the so called Race Card first and hardest.See what HRC and BC said about MLK and LBJ – how it took a team of vision and courage and leadership and a politician (a mean tough one) to get belated needed civil rights legislation passed. That is what they said. The BO camp played it as– It took a white to finish a Black Man’s work.

See the BC discussion of the lack of consistent written or vocal anti war criticism by Barack after the one great speech. See what BO said to the press around the convention time when he said he did not know how he would vote if he had that information at that time in a seat in the Senate with the weight of an actual actionable bill on his shoulders. See him take his anti war speech off his web page about that time. See him vote exactly the same as HRC when he got to a National position. So BC calls it a myth that Barack Obama was a consistent vocal anti war critic.

That is what he said. Said give me a break it’s a myth that BO has been a …… read the record. But that discussion about BO and his anti war inconsistency was played hard and dirty as a race card by the BO camp – suggesting BC said -- its a myth a Black can win (I am White and there was no code book handed out for me to read what BC said as racist)

But liberals – and I am a liberal too – seem to play this just one direction. I fail to understand why its fair for Barack Obama to play the race card but its not fair for the Clintons to talk about the importance of a strong politician to get laws made and to talk about the lack of true anti war activity by Barack Obama Then – Barack Obama – loses in big states and says – its not white voters – its seniors.

Yes the numbers show seniors vote for HRC in large percentage. Yet I heard BO and his camp and his supporters fan the racial flames by implying and or saying over and over that seniors are racist – it’s that prior generation white that is a bigot.

Why is that ok for BO to imply and say but its not ok for those who prefer HRC as the DEM torch bearer to mention that BO got nearly 100% of the Black vote across all ages in the last dozen or so primaries.

Sure that 90+%  can be considered affintity voting - a minority voting for a minority – but no other group votes like that – NONE.

So why are the Obama upporters throwing “race” or “race bating”  stones when they have the most race oriented vote in the entire contest.

Bar none - - the single demographic that has the highest correlation with voting for one candidate is – Are you Black? Answer Yes = 90+% probable you voted for BO.

Again that may be necessary and or fair at this point in history - but BO supporters having voted in a racial oriented fashion should not talk about the racial patterns of others in this contest as racist. How hypocritical. An 11 on a scale of 10.

I will vote for BO if he keeps the Dem Torch because his policies are near identical to HRC – solid liberal – and he will grow and is extremely bright and learned his politics in my adopted city.  

I do not understand people who say HRC or then McCain.

The Clintons – and now some talking heads are saying what we all know – the Republicans will use the fact that BO is Black to try and scare voters into a Republican victory.

Republicans do it over and over – hate and fear and wedge issues to get people to forget their economic or civil or constituional rights. 

But worse –are faux liberals – who blast HRC but give a free ride to Barack when he has been more racially divisive and dirtier in using the race card then the Clintons combined.

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 14:53
 

Unfairness

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.

Submitted by looking for integrity on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:19
 

to looking

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

 

 

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:36
 

I agree

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.

Submitted by looking for integrity on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:50
 

Ted, I think you are

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

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 16:56
 

Ted makes my points....

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

Submitted by Denise on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:02
 

I'll agree if

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:51
 

And here's where I struggle.

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

Submitted by Denise on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 18:15
 

So ignore the other stuff and talk about the
policies

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 18:47
 

I've been listening, Maria

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

Submitted by lauriewrites on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 08:59
 

Different topic

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 10:52
 

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

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 -

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 12:39
 

Denise - re hypocirisy and policy

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  

 

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 11:42
 

Denise

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

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 11:18
 

Listen to the audio

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 17:42
 

Honest is not raciist

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 

 

 

Submitted by Ted in Chicago on Tue, 05/13/2008 - 11:48
 

The black vote

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

Submitted by Maria Niles on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 18:18
 

Dude......

Yes the numbers show seniors vote for HRC in large percentage. Yet I heard BO and his camp and his supporters fan the racial flames by implying and or saying over and over that seniors are racist – it’s that prior generation white that is a bigot.

Why is that ok for BO to imply and say but its not ok for those who prefer HRC as the DEM torch bearer to mention that BO got nearly 100% of the Black vote across all ages in the last dozen or so primaries.

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

Submitted by lainad on Mon, 05/12/2008 - 15:00