Hillary's Shame
AB, on the Home Page of TPM got it absolutely right in being outraged by Clinton's remarks on "whites" and "hard working white american's." (I hope those quotation marks do not offend Ogregon Activist).
While I have pretty much supported Obama since he declared his candidacy I had very little anomosity toward Hillary Clinton. But as the campaing has gone on and the Clinton's (Bill and Hillary) have constantly tried to divide not only the party but the country into whites and blacks I am outraged against her (them).
I am a 60 year old white (and I like to think hard working american) who has very strong southern roots. While I grew up and have lived most of my life in Missouri both of my parents are from Alabama. Growing up and spending many summers in the South I saw the horrors of segregation first hand. I thought, until this election, that we had made enormous progress, slow, but real progress over the past 30 or 40 years. Much of America's support for Obama still gives me hope that we have. But when Hillary comes out and tries, in a last ditch effort to steal the nomination, and once again plays on the old fears and hatreds of long ago it is past time for her to remove herself from the campaign.
A final thought on the Clinton Campaign. Day before yesterday Hillary made the statement, "If we were following the Republican Rules I would be the nominee." it simply proved my first blog about Hillary being John McCain's VP. We are not, Mrs Clinton, the Republican's for good reason. You agreed to the rules when you were the front runner and now that you are not you want us to change the party structure in the middle of the game and all of us follow the same rules and the Republicans. Following the same rules and the Republicans has brought us to $4.00 + per gallon of gasoline and thousands of American lives and millions upon millions of dollars.
No thank you Mrs. Clinton, not wanting to follow the Republican rules is exactly why I support Obama.
While I have pretty much supported Obama since he declared his candidacy I had very little anomosity toward Hillary Clinton. But as the campaing has gone on and the Clinton's (Bill and Hillary) have constantly tried to divide not only the party but the country into whites and blacks I am outraged against her (them).
I am a 60 year old white (and I like to think hard working american) who has very strong southern roots. While I grew up and have lived most of my life in Missouri both of my parents are from Alabama. Growing up and spending many summers in the South I saw the horrors of segregation first hand. I thought, until this election, that we had made enormous progress, slow, but real progress over the past 30 or 40 years. Much of America's support for Obama still gives me hope that we have. But when Hillary comes out and tries, in a last ditch effort to steal the nomination, and once again plays on the old fears and hatreds of long ago it is past time for her to remove herself from the campaign.
A final thought on the Clinton Campaign. Day before yesterday Hillary made the statement, "If we were following the Republican Rules I would be the nominee." it simply proved my first blog about Hillary being John McCain's VP. We are not, Mrs Clinton, the Republican's for good reason. You agreed to the rules when you were the front runner and now that you are not you want us to change the party structure in the middle of the game and all of us follow the same rules and the Republicans. Following the same rules and the Republicans has brought us to $4.00 + per gallon of gasoline and thousands of American lives and millions upon millions of dollars.
No thank you Mrs. Clinton, not wanting to follow the Republican rules is exactly why I support Obama.
Advertisement
(I just put this comment on Dave Morgan's "Clinton Plays the Race Card" blog, but thought it appropriate here as well.)
Gene Robinson of the Washington Post had an interesting column today about the Hillary race problem:
"From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- ...Clinton's sin isn't racism, it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama.
"It's still early," Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050802807.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Meanwhile the Hillary Deathwatch on Slate.com has lowered her chances to 2.3% and have matched their graphic with a barely visible Hillary on her sinking ship:
"...Clinton has a new strategy: Say Obama can't win white voters. This, just as three extremely white states—West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon—prepare to vote. Obama's strategy: Ignore Clinton and focus on McCain. Watch this awkward dynamic escalate as long as Clinton stays in the race: Clinton ratchets up the rhetoric, while Obama pretends she doesn't exist. If an attack ad airs in Montana, but no one responds, does it make a sound?"
http://www.slate.com/id/2190986/
I'd like to ignore her to, but I can't ignore racism.
May 9, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
That just about sums it up. Every time I resolve to quit saying negative things about Clinton she finds a new level she is willing to stoop to and opens a whole new wound that bleeds outrage. When will it end?
May 9, 2008 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
That says it all Larry. I remember right after the primary, folks like one_wilson, bslev, foreigner, and even Otto were ready to unify the party. We welcomed this new transition as finally the end to the nastiness. A start to democratic unity had begun.
Both Obamanites and Clintonistas had misjudged Hillary. We thought she saw the writing on the wall, just in time. We need a democrat in the White House. With McCain associating Obama with hamas, there was no time to spare.
We all looked in amazement as she not only vowed to go on with her losing campaign, but actually stepped up the rhetoric.
To the delight of Clinton supporters, and to the chagrin of ours, she has destroyed that thin line of unity, felt for only a short time in the wee hours after this last primary.
How sad for us as democrats.
May 9, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope the angry black guy has a right to agree with Larry....lol. Everytime I wake up and say I'm moving on, every single time.
May 9, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, exactly. Really, the awful fascination of watching her self-immolation is the only thing that keeps getting her press. On some level--as an apparently once smart liberal pol plummets berserkly into David Dukedom--does she know that? Is the attention of appalled gawkers better than no attention at all?
May 9, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Notice she said the "hard working white Americans" crap before the West Virginia and Kentucky elections. Now she can say "see, I told you so" when Obama looses those states.
Simply pathetic and her new BS about not criticizing Obama in her speeches and then saying things like this behind closed doors is just despicable!
May 9, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't say "hardworking white Americans." So why is it okay for the press to discuss demographics, but Clinton can't? "blue collar, hardworking Americans, white Americans IS her strongest demographic. She HAS overwhelmingly won their support. That doesn't make Clinton a racist, it doesn't make blue collar Americans racist and because someone fails to mention another group as "hardworking Americans" it doesn't mean that any other demographic isn't "hardworking". Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
May 9, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what she said: his "support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again," That phrase "hard-working Americans, white Americans,” is the problem. She didn't mean these as two separate categories, because there is no polling category that has to do with hard work. She starts with "working," elaborates it to "hard-working," and further elaborates it to "white." Incredible that people are giving her a pass on it.
May 9, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to the actual USAToday piece, she said that she has a broader coalition and then at some later point, she cited some exit poll info in about the same language as every talking head on Tuesday night.
Sure, it wasn't her most inspired moment, but why can't she say the same things as everyone else, or does she have to wait for them to ask the question? And, how is this terribly different than all of the overt claims from vocal Obama supporters and implications from the candidate that if he's not the nominee, then the largest groups of his voters might sit out on election day?
I probably wouldn't have said, but I'm old school and I'm just now learning that it may be alright to see race. (I'm Obama's age, so some of the dialogue on Scrubs has always made me uncomfortable, as hell)
May 10, 2008 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to the TPM Calendar, it appears that Obama isn't really campaigning in WV or KY, so it'll probably be kind of hard for him to win.
May 10, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have coupled the two words that now belong together:
hillary and shame
And her behavior has dragged all of us Dems into a public soap opera. I've run out of words to express my absolute repudiation of "that woman."
This has got to stop!!!
May 9, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stephen, I agree. I'm a 57-year-old white man who's supported Barack Obama from the start, but I'd always liked Hillary Clinton. Last year, I would have been happy enough with either of them. No more. Her arrogance, her overriding ambition, her willingness to use racism and anything else to get the nomination - even to the extent of destroying the Democratic Party and doing lasting harm to our country - have completely changed my mind.
I am furious at her and at that part of the Democratic Party which is still racist or at least willing to overlook this kind of thing in order to advance their own political power. There's a reason why Hillary has consistently lost support from black voters. She was very competitive with that segment of the party at first, but I'm sure they're more likely to notice racist innuendo (or else it just matters more to them than to many whites).
But this is NOT the kind of Democratic Party we want, I hope. It's certainly not the kind I want! We chose the high road once before when we gave up the South by backing integration and civil rights. Was that wrong? I don't think so. And the country has moved on. We have not come as far as I'd hoped, but we're not the country of my childhood. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a huge stride forward. How can we not make the attempt?
May 9, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Superdelegates: If you want our support in your own future elections, stop being bystanders to mayhem. Let us see you own Profile in Courage: Tell Hillary to get out -- today.
May 9, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Superdelegates: if you want our support in your own future elections, don't meddle. Let the remaining primaries play out.
May 9, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
As elegant a phrase as has been turned on TPM. Soft, gentle, and full of teeth.
Bravo, Amber!
May 9, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama stops losing whites by 20 points in these important states, Clinton will no longer have a point.
You people's reverse racism is disgusting. Were Obama to make the statement "I've got the black vote" I'm sure you would all be fine with that, and it is the truth. The fact that Clinton has had the white vote, and specifically that of the Reagan Democrats that often determine the winner in the general, is a point in her case for the nomination.
May 9, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has to only win the white vote against McCain at this point, not Hillary.
May 9, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
And? Do you think that will be an easier task. I do not.
I think we're continuing to see a trend here: if Clinton does not win the nomination, a number of her supporters will actually turn over and vote for McCain. If Obama does not win the nomination, a number of his supporters would stay home and not vote.
Which is worse? I don't know, but as a high-income educated white voter, I can tell you that Obama lost my vote in March. McCain probably will not get it either (unless he had some sudden drastic policy changes), and I am sure there are many more like myself.
The common view that Obama is going to sweep McCain in the general is intriguing. Obama is set to lose the biggest swing states, Ohio and Florida. He can't connect with the white voters that Clinton has, and he has a past that now makes many voters like myself leary of him as President.
May 9, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cool. So you will vote for your candidate of choice in November, and you've stated it won't be Obama.
The important point is the following: if the Democratic Party wants to split (read about the 1856 and 1860 elections and look at the history of the Whigs), the shortest path is to listen to comments of extortion.
Said another way: the sooner that the Dems align behind Obama, who is the apparent nominee, the sooner the party can get it's act together. If there are people who voted for Hillary that now will vote for McCain that is their choice.
If they are doing it on the basis of policy and leadership choices, I applaud them.
If they are doing it as threats, I say that is a group of drama queens looking for attention.
If you see Hillary's policies closer to McCain's than Obama, then perhaps she should have been running as a Republican to begin with.
May 9, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We tend to see that which we are also hoping for -just ask Bush.
Those white voters you say that Obama can't connect to are the Reagan Democrats. If those folks are bigoted enough to vote for Hillary over Obama just because she's 100% white, what makes you think they wouldn't vote for McCain over Hillary just because he's white AND male?
May 9, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a kernal of truth to what you say. It is true that less educated working class whites have voted in higher numbers for Clinton in recent contests. And it is true that the vast majority of African American voters have backed Obama.
To some extent I suppose this is to be expected. Once it became clear that Obama had a real shot at the nomination, and the fact that he has many strong qualities that would make him a good POTUS, African Americans naturally seized the posibility of making history. With slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, cross burning and all the rest, can anyone really hold it against them? Of course not.
Nor do I hold it against the many women, especially women over 40, who can remember the days of newspapers with classified job listings for women's jobs and men's jobs. When it was extremely difficult to rise above "secratary". When companies didn't even hide that they paid women and men differently for the same work (if women could even get the same work!!!). When a little pat of the butt went along with "I take cream in my coffee, sweetie".
To a large part, I think it is normal, given the above history, for this historic primary between a woman and African American to have split down the middle as it has.
But what I find repulsive is for either candidate to make her or his case to the superdelegates that she or he is the better choice BECAUSE this ethnic group or that one will only support her or him. I find Clinton's arguement crass...and more importantly, I don't buy it. Given time, I believe most Democratic voters will come around and support either Clinton or Obama as the nominee.
May 10, 2008 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly.
Saying "I've got the white vote," isn't racist by itself. Although it is probably not the smartest thing to say, and depending on context, potentially problematic.
However, saying "I've got the white vote, so I should therefore be the nominee," well, is much more likely to be racist and clearly veering towards being likely problematic.
Beyond this, making this second statement while implying that these same (white) voters wouldn't vote for Obama, with the obvious implication being because he's black, well, that is a problem. It's demeaning to Obama, but more than this, it's very demeaning to the voters because it's suggesting that *they* are racist and wouldn't vote for Obama.
While I'm not sure Clinton's intent was this, it is no gross misreading to think that she did. It's deeply unfortunate.
What has bothered me about this divide in Democrats is that Obama supporters are mad at Clinton for her attacks on Obama. Clinton supporters don't like Obama because of her attacks on Obama.
This has bothered me far more than Clinton's belief that the process is an elaborate game of Calvin Ball where she can change the rules at will to win the nomination.
And it has been what has turned me from someone who would have been excited to vote for our first woman presidential candidate, if she were the nominee; to dreading that she might sneak her way in; to finally great disappointment over the way a promising candidate is now actively participating in the negative (Republican created) framing of Democrats (as elitists) and policy (don't trust those economists).
Alas. It cannot be over too soon.
May 10, 2008 4:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
All the voters of all the primaries should be respected and counted whether you agree with them or not. The "Obama-tone" is going to lose him the election with its insults and incapacity to see the other side and "work with."
May 9, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vaughn B:
Whom did you vote for in the primary?
Whom will you vote for in the GE assuming it's Obama vs McCain?
May 9, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Joe Conason notes on Salon, whether intended or not, her comments were like a dog whistle to certain voters in West Virginia and Kentucky.
May 9, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can beat up the GOP for a lot of things, but they didn't bring you $4.00 gas even though it happened on their watch.
$4.00/gal gas is a result of a limited resource.
It's true that economic policies help dictate this. Since the 1980's the US government was behind the notion of the financial sector would be the prime sector in the economy -- and that includes the Clinton administrations.
This administration brought us a needless war and showed poor fiscal restraint. If you want meat in the argument of the GOPs, that should be plenty to work with and keeps things straight up and honest.
May 9, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 9, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's get it right:
Starting in the late 1980s the Reagan Administration put finance on the top of their list as to where the future of the US economy would lie.
During the Clinton Administration, the finance sector replaced manufacturing as the #1 part of the US GDP.
The War in Iraq was a needless expense, to be sure. And the invasion of Iraq raised the hackles of OPEC, and the Saudis in particular, to start thinking about selling oil in something besides the US dollar (e.g. the petrodollar) which was an arrangement that the GOP (under Nixon) set up in 1974. (One of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was the Hussein was already trading in Euros.)
Moreover, the Saudis lowered their holdings of dollars in their foreign reserve. This hurt the dollar as well.
But the buying and selling of debt as an investment vehicle is what is truly crumbling the US dollar. This includes the make-over of Wall Street.
The Clintons are deeply involved in this. For example, check where Chelsea works. A hedge fund. Hedge funds produce no value themselves, they assume value of goods and services elsewhere. The Chinese, meanwhile, are propping up our economy by buying our debt, so we continue to form a market for them to sell in.
Meanwhile, they are hoarding their own currency, keeping it out of the hands of foreigner mischief.
Another check: which country is continually involved with the Clintons? Right, the Chinese.
The Fed encouraged the housing bubble and bailed out the banks. So the financial institutions and the "little people" all climbed on the great debt to quick riches.
So... what you have is the high ups in the government, including both parties, including the Bushes and the Clintons, are cozy with oil and Wall Street respectively... and the middle class is spending into oblivion on the "value" of their home.
This is the reason why the dollar is crumbling -- it's all associated with the buying and selling of debt.
And this is the reason why dynasty politics will destroy the US.
This is the reason to keep the Clintons away from the White House.
So, who is to blame?
a) both parties, and especially the Bush and Clinton power blocks
b) the vast majority of the American Public who tried to hit the lottery in the home building boom
Once upon a time people rented and saved... now you have too many people in houses they couldn't afford, which elevated prices, etc. etc.
The sooner you chuck the easy but emotional reaction of "it's all the bad Republicans" and get a sense of the real picture, the faster real solutions will be found.
May 9, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So everyone that breaks down the categories are racists, right? This is a situation where race cannot be avoided. You people are all up in arms about Hillary telling the TRUTH! Just what do you want from Hillary Clinton? Have any of you checked Obama out? If you did ladies, you would find that he has no respect for you. I pray that we do not find out just what he is all about by him getting the nomination. Hillary's shame!! How positively ridiculous. so just what have all of you done to make this world a better place? I don't want to know, I just think you should make your own camparison and see who comes out on top?
I would vote for a DECENT black man and I am white. Hillary Clinton is not a racist. Perhaps you are?
May 9, 2008 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone who breaks down the "categories" into black and white are racists.
May 9, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I truly hope that Hillary's reputation and career is finished after this. She's run the ugliest, nastiest, most revolting campaign imaginable. My initial positive view of her is totally destroyed. I can only hope that most Americans feel the same and if she tries to put America through this ugly Clinton freakshow again in 2012 or 2016, people immediately slap them down.
I agree with the person who said that every time I resolve to stop badmouthing her, she stoops to a new low and makes me mad.
May 9, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
At some point moving beyond anger might be useful. Put Hillary aside for a moment. What's the purpose of having the whole thing blow up? Does that make sense?
Perhaps it's really time to calm down and think about the path Obama has offered. Is it real or just a load of wishful crap?
If Obama offers you this path and you won't take it, what does that say about the quality of the offer? Obama has said that he wants you to rise above all this. Obama will be the one who looks like a fake if you can't be so inspired. So get inspired.
May 9, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep saying, "Don't take the bait!" -- then I take it, by keeping on talking about this nonsense.
I guess, since most white voters in Oregon won't vote for Clinton, that they're not "hardworking". Or else the "white voters" who matter are only those white voters bigoted enough to reject Obama because he's black. Sheesh.
She's a sore loser, but no point letting her ridiculous comments distract from the real story, which is that her chances of being on the Democratic ticket are down to nil.
May 10, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"(Representative Charles Rangel of New York, who is black and has been an absolutely unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton’s White House quest, told The Daily News: “I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.”)
But it’s an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It’s true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now."
After watching and listening to the Friday political shows and hearing more about Hillary's statement, it upset me all over again. It's good to see that some of her supporters like Charlie Rangel didn't take too well either.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
May 10, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink