Hillary Clinton Says Only Whites Matter

[slinkerwink]

Hillary Clinton again plays the race card in her interview with USAToday. This is scorched earth policy in full view, folks, as you can see below:

Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.
"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.

....

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that in Indiana, Obama split working-class voters with Clinton and won a higher percentage of white voters than in Ohio in March. He said Obama will be the strongest nominee because he appeals "to Americans from every background and all walks of life. These statements from Sen. Clinton are not true and frankly disappointing."

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."

And here are the reactions of those to this USAToday article:

Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton's comment was a "poorly worded" variation on the way analysts have been "slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms."

However, he said her primary support doesn't prove she's more electable. Either Democrat will get "the vast majority" of the other's primary election votes in a general election, he said.

link to USAToday article: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm

[slinkerwink]

1. she's going scorched earth here. she will not salvage her political legacy with comments like these.

[mikiturner]

9. I'm stunned by this

Just stunned.

[DJ13]

She doesnt have a political legacy that wasnt a setup to run for President

She only ran for the Senate to prepare to run for President.

Without achieving her goal she has no need for a legacy in her mind.

Her entire life over the last 15 years (just after Bill won the Presidency the first time) has been one huge triangulation towards cementing her place in history as the first woman President.

In reality I doubt she has any plans to run for reelection of her Senate seat after this attempt to grab the nomination ends in defeat.

[ZinZen]

10. Well, Rachel Maddow was right

she called it last night and stated Clinton would use scorched earth politics. If she continues, she hurt her Senate legacy. But that is the choice she wants to make.

[slinkerwink]

14. then we'll primary her in 2012. Her Senate term ends on that year.

We'd better gin up some money for whichever primary opponent that may be.

[speedoo]

40. Yup. She's alienated a LOT of NYers.

And I'm one of them.

[gbrenna]

149. Rachel was right

However, I think it's more likely that blacks are now 'dead to Hillary and Bill' because they have betrayed her so she throws them under the bus. The Clintons value loyalty more than anything else.

[jasmine621]

74. She's making a valid point and only Obama supporters are turning it into

negative race issue. You didn't go there when Obama said that many Clinton supporters would be willing to vote for him in the GE but she wouldn't be able to get many of his supporters. He was the first to say something like this and I remember it well because it made many Clinton supporters angry.

[JI7]

2. i would rather lose with Obama than get dragged around by racists

and why haven't the white Dems that african americans and other minorities supported for years done anything to deal with the racism?

and Obama has won white voters in places like Iowa. in fact it's very likely he would not have done as well with african americans as he is doing if he did not show that he could win a state like Iowa.

[slinkerwink]

4. I'm a Democrat, and this isn't the party of racial divisions--for fuck's sake, we're the party of

civil rights.

[goclark]

65. That's what I always thought until now

How hurtful it is to see that a family that we thought was on our side is not.

:shrug:

[Levgreee]

3. "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the

election. Everybody knows that."

You have to win blacks too, which you aren't doing! Ooooooh, look how quick that can be twisted around.

[FrenchieCat]

5. I so tired of this negative person!

I'm sending this article to everyone I know in the Black community. She's gonna have to get dragged off the stage, because she is despicable. :mad:

[slinkerwink]

6. we may have to physically bar her from entering the Democratic convention

she's fucking delusional.

[Maddy McCall]

13. LOLOL!

You just go ahead and try.

:rofl:

[onehandle]

22. "dragged off the stage" "physically bar her"

Sounds like threats on a sitting Senator to me.

[slinkerwink]

26. you clearly don't recognize metaphors.

And shame on you for supporting a candidate like this. Shame on you!

[onehandle]

29. I don't support her.

I don't support veiled(?) threats on candidates or elected officials either.

[slinkerwink]

33. oh, brother.

[slinkerwink]

34. oh, brother.

[Maddy McCall]

36. "physically bar her"

Not much veiled about that.

That poster is seriously overstating her power (to an outlandish--and entertaining--extent)...but it's certainly not veiled.

[Maddy McCall]

31. "physically bar her"

What's that a metaphor for?

You sound like your backtracking now.

[DemVet]

97. And....

...shame on you for supporting a cheerleading, wet behind the ears, experienced, lying candidate like Barack Hussein Obama.

[Maddy McCall]

27. Idiotic. Doltish. Naive. Delusion of Grandeur...

so many words to describe that crazed post.

As IF that person has the power (physical or otherwise) to bar Clinton from the convention.

I've seen a lot of crazy talk at DU...that's probably the most outlandish thing I've read. lol.

[IsItJustMe]

55. Are you alright? Can I call someone or something?

[Catherina]

67. Off to ignore with hysterical drama queens

I'm not letting flakes color my perception of the majority of HRC's supporters from now one.

Threats on a sitting Senator. Good God. If you're for real, that's sad. Goodbye

[MonkeyFunk]

42. Yeah, please try that

and be sure to get video.

[Heather MC]

134. They referred to Hillary as:

"The dog is still in the race" on Wolf Blitzers show, it was her reporter Paul who said it LOL
here's an Idea to get her to stop, it's non violent

[Darth_Kitten]

106. Gee, why would you? Hmmmm, stirring up your imaginary pot of grievances?

Take a good look in the mirror, Frenchie. I think you have some major anger issues and seem just a tad bigotted. Yes, you.

[mikiturner]

7. A disgusting display

I actually thought she would campaign in a graceful and dignified way.

[slinkerwink]

11. there's no such things as a high note for the Clintons. There are only low notes for them.

[Darth_Kitten]

107. The Obamabots are ones to talk.

n/t

[GetTheRightVote]

8. She is going to need to leave the party with comments like these

Terrible, simply terrible.

[w13rd0]

12. Very dissappointing...

...what's next?

[slinkerwink]

15. probably more circulation of Obama wearing traditional African garb to further stoke

white resentment in Kentucky and West Virginia.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. "Working, hard-working Americans, WHITE Americans: there's a pattern emerging" Hard-working = White

This is George Wallace shit.

[slinkerwink]

18. exactly. It's implying only white Americans are hard-working while the others aren't.

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. Everyone knows working class Blacks are poor and working class Whites are middle class

Can't have "poor people" claim the same status as "deserving middle class" who are fooled into thinking they are equals to the Doctor down the street because they share skin color.

[LisaM]

150. No, it's a breakdown of the white voting demographic.

The black voting demographic does not need to be broken down. They are voting for Obama in numbers higher than 90% in some cases. Implicitly, the black vote, which is quite unified this cycle, includes professionals, working class, rich, poor, educated, and not.

I thought I'd seen some stretches before, but this takes the cake.

[ecstatic]

51. That jumped out at me too. Shameful! nt

[IsItJustMe]

57. Yes it is. No doubt about it. The good news is that most people see it for what it is.

[bread_and_roses]

90. Nail on the head there. This is despicable language, despicable tactics. Blatant racism.

I saw a post yesterday quoting one of her advisors saying this, and I was so stunned I couldn't even process it. I came back later and couldn't find the post - I am glad to see it discussed today.

As you point out, this isn't even subtle - it's blatant racism.

And for those who falsely equate noting Obama winning the Black vote with statements like these, such an equation is either blind or obtuse.

Blind to the fact that it is not white people who have, as a group, been the object of centuries of oppression and institutionalized racism. To equate the two is to completely ignore the historical and current disparity in power, and the inevitable dynamic of such disparities.

It's a looking glass world where if we applied these criteria to, say, South Africa, we'd have to conclude that if both Nelson Mandala and his white opponent had promised exactly the same agenda - peace and reconciliation, freedom, civil rights - then the black population should have voted for the white man because he had "experience." (And to those who say we're not South Africa, I invite you to look at the statistics: it's a matter of degree, and the difference has been shrinking since Reagan. Look at our prison stats, if nothing else.)

Also blind to the fact that of no other group that I am aware of do we say they are "the most reliable voting block in the Democratic Party." This, if nothing else, makes noting the Black vote legitimate in a Democratic Primary, since they can be legitimately referred to as a voting block. Working class whites - the backbone of the Reagan Revolution - have not been a reliable voting block for the Democratic Party.

And obtuse to the simple and obvious comparison for the campaigns being not between Black and White but between two oppressed groups: African Americans and women. Anyone who doesn't understand women - Black or white - voting for a woman ignores the millennia of oppression of women by men. Do we call it sexist when we allude to the numbers of women voting for Hillary? No more is it racist to allude to the numbers of Black Americans voting for Obama.

For some of us, it has been deeply painful to have to choose between a black man and a white woman in this election (less so for me, a middle-aged white woman, because Hillary's record on war/peace is atrocious and she has run the antithesis of anything resembling a campaign based on feminist/humanist principles, with her war-mongering, her coded and now blatant racism, and her record - a woman, a mother supporting cluster bombs - it is unforgivable). But however much I disagree with my Sisters, even rail at them for supporting this particular woman - I understand them. I understand the dynamic that leaves one thinking better the oppressor that is one of us than the oppressor who is one of them.

Who knows how much damage the racism the Clintons have called on in this contest has done? Damage to Obama - who won a hell of a lot of white votes in the early contests, if I recall? - damage to all of us, white and black, who care about a civil and just society? It is unforgivable.

immediate edit for grammar

[Arugula Latte]

124. I'm surprised she didn't call them "those lazy, shiftless negros."

Jesus!

[Spazito]

17. If anyone believed the Clinton campaign was above using the

reprehensible "southern strategy", this certainly should disabuse them of that belief.

Despicable on so many levels.

[JI7]

19. her husband should have done more about racism in the community

and yes, there is a difference between the high number of african americans voting for Obama and the whites voting for Hillary(who wont vote for Obama).

the african americans have and will continue to vote for white Democrats. they vote for white Democrats like Kerry in 2004 over african americans like Sharpton. they vote for white Democrats like Ed Rendell over that Republican african american he ran against.

but the white racists voting for Hillary have NEVER and NEVER Will vote for a minority. and the Clintons are all to happy to exploit that rather than tell them it's wrong to be a racist. i'm not talking about all white Clnton supporters but the ones who are obviously and against Obama because he is black.

why don't white politicians ever have to give a speech like Obama did on race when blacks like Wright offend white people.

and to the Governor from North Carolina : FUCK YOU.

[EffieBlack]

21. I was surprised by her saying today, "You need a president who will fight for YOU!"

Is she saying that a President Obama would NOT fight for them?

[Leopolds Ghost]

30. Isn't that a direct quote from the "White Hands" ad?

[Cha]

39. hilary's a LIAR...she fights for the military complex

machine..that's what she's always done and now she's pandering and lying again.

[CitizenLeft]

23. un-fucking-believable.

With every passing week, she goes further and further across the line. Disgusting.

[The Night Owl]

24. I just bought the Obamaton Dictionary at 1/16th Price Books and learned that racism is defined as...

Racism

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈhi-lə-rē\
Function: crude weapon

Date: 2008
1 : the belief that Barack Obama is not necessarily the best candidate
2 : praise of Hillary Clinton
3 : civility toward Hillary Clinton or her supporters

[slinkerwink]

28. are you actually defending her statements?

[The Night Owl]

Which statements? {EOM}

[slinkerwink]

35. Read. the. fucking. article.

[The Night Owl]

43. I did read the article, goofy. I can't figure out if you're asking for my opinion of...

...what Hillary Clinton actually said or if you're asking for my opinion of the statement which you apparently fabricated and maliciously attributed to Clinton.

[slinkerwink]

54. wow. You're reading it differently from all the others here. What do you see from her statements?

[MonkeyFunk]

69. Probably because "all the others here"

are deranged obama fans who believe any and every lie you guys put forward. Thinking people know that Hillary clinton didn't say what you claim.

[foo_bar]

81. how do you spin this statement into something wholesome?

(Hillary: ) Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again

(You: ) Thinking people know that Hillary clinton didn't say what you claim.

Emphasis mine. By way of cognitive dissonance, imagine if Obama made the following statement: "Hillary's support among working, hard-working Americans, *straight* Americans, is weakening"; would or wouldn't you notice the subtext?

[foo_bar]

89. it's an imperfect analogy since gays aren't afflicted with a slacker stereotype

Or maybe that changed with Sarah Silverman. Imagine (if you will, a la Rod Serling) a more culturally appropriate cue: "(My opponent's) support among moral, upstanding Americans, married Americans, is weakening"; it would sound a heck of a lot like Jerry Falwell or 99% of repub pols, right? And it would really be twisting the knife since gays aren't even legally allowed to get married (in most jurisdictions), the same way African Americans don't exactly have the easiest time finding work in a segregated society that expects them to fail at any moment.

[The Night Owl]

104. See post #58.

You're seeing racism where there is none.

[foo_bar]

109. repeating a faith-based belief doesn't render it a fact

in spite of Goebbels's maxim. If you want to try the empathy experiment, replace "white Americans" with something that doesn't apply to you (say, "hard-working, progressive Americans") and examine if your emotional development has surpassed that of an average 6 year old.

[The Night Owl]

111. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I didn't state a belief in post #58.

I asked a question... one which, not surprisingly, you seem to want to dodge.

[foo_bar]

112. I can understand the sudden need for a non sequitur

If you grant me the kindness of addressing the content of my post(s), I'll be glad to reciprocate. Otherwise you seem to be comparing apples to "hard-working Americans, white Americans".

[The Night Owl]

116. I'll take that as a...

...yes... you do have a reading comprehension problem. Or perhaps you're just dishonest.

[foo_bar]

117. since post #58 is utterly unrelated to post #81,

"reading comprehension problem" and "dishonest" seem like an obvious form of "projection". Here's the post you actually replied to:

foo_bar
81. how do you spin this statement into something wholesome?

(Hillary: ) Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again
(You: ) Thinking people know that Hillary clinton didn't say what you claim.

Emphasis mine. By way of cognitive dissonance, imagine if Obama made the following statement: "Hillary's support among working, hard-working Americans, *straight* Americans, is weakening"; would or wouldn't you notice the subtext?

Here's post #58 again:

So, if I tell you that I just ate some "delicious red apples" would you assume...

...that I consider only red apples to be delicious?

Note the lack of any relationship between the two posts. Hence "apples and oranges", or still life and human beings you don't give a damn about.

[The Night Owl]

119. The clue phone is ringing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

...and I suggest you pick it up.

[foo_bar]

121. feel free to formulate an original response that pertains to the subject

Since you're incapable of responding to the content of my post, I'll play along with what I think you're trying to say. Let's take the preceding example, "Decent people, moral people, heterosexuals, are deserting Clinton"; does that imply that only heterosexuals are decent? Well yes, it does, unless your linguistic frame of reference is frozen at a toddler's level. Which appears to be the case:

So, if I tell you that I just ate some "delicious red apples" would you assume...

...that I consider only red apples to be delicious?

[The Night Owl]

126. The problem is that you're assuming that your interpretation of...

...Hillary Clinton's statement is the only correct interpretation.

Using your analogy...

If I were to say that moral heterosexuals are abandoning Hillary Clinton, then you could assume that I consider only heterosexuals to be moral, but then again, you might be wrong in that assumption because I could have been trying to say that moral heterosexuals, as opposed to immoral heterosexuals, are abandoning Hillary Clinton.

If you're really bugged by Clinton's statement, then put the torch and pitchfork away and send an email asking for clarification to her website. Or, just live with the fact that you don't really know what she meant.

[foo_bar]

122. OK, I think I figured out how to bridge this unfathomable leap

Red apples, the non-poisonous kind, are essential to life

How would Granny Smith apples (the green ones) feel about the preceding statement, if apples represented sentient beings? You can try to empathize for real since it's not your ox being cored.

[The Night Owl]

127. The green apples should ask for clarification.

The following statement...

Red apples, the non-poisonous kind, are essential to life.

... could be interpreted two ways....

1. Red apples are the only non-poisonous apples.

2. The non-poisonous variety of red apples are essential to life.

Get it? Because the statement is clumsy, one can reasonably assume that it is referring to either all red apples or a subset of red apples.

Considering the amount of talking which politicans running for high office have to do, you should probably assume that they might make clumsy statements every now and then.

[foo_bar]

128. that comes closest to spinning the statement into something less noxious

... could be interpreted two ways....

1. Red apples are the only non-poisonous apples.

2. The non-poisonous variety of red apples are essential to life.

Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening

So the benign interpretation of Hillary's statement is: only the hard-working variety of white American is defecting from Obama, i.e., not eggheads/the college educated/undesirables/the wrong religion perhaps/other non-hardworking white Americans (and/or non-white Americans) that continue to support Obama? That's the innocent explanation?

[The Night Owl]

129. Stop putting words in Senator Clinton's mouth.

Senator Clinton did not suggest that the whites who are voting for Barack Obama are undesirable or of the wrong religion.

The fact that you are now resorting to adding words to what Clinton said should serve to demonstrate to you that you are barking up the wrong tree.

[foo_bar]

135. sorry, that was probably a lot of information at once.

Senator Clinton did not suggest that the whites who are voting for Barack Obama are undesirable or of the wrong religion.

Undesirable as in not desirable, per "I <, Hillary> have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on" (although "broad" in this sense curiously means the narrowest slice of "white Americans" that can be said to be reliably pro-Clinton this week). I wrote "perhaps" the wrong religion, since Hillary's "clumsy" (ambiguous? unintentionally truthful?) door #2 would encompass all non-hardworking white Americans, which leads any observer to wonder which varieties of American she had in mind:

Longtime Democratic operative Bob Shrum, who led John Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign, said that party leaders -- including convention superdelegates -- fear that Clinton may be adopting a strategy that unnecessarily fuels antagonisms within party ranks.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/hillary-clint-8.html

Probably not a great sign when Shrum and Sen. Feinstein are tiptoeing out of the chamber. By the most charitable interpretation, #2 isn't remotely truthful, which confers further doubt on the "clumsiness" of this ambiguity:

The comments have ignited a furor similar to that which erupted after Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, compared Obama's success in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential run. Then, as now, the data show something different.

The network exit polls show Clinton winning whites without college degrees in both Indiana and North Carolina by wide margins, but without evident slippage for Obama. And Clinton's margin among this group in Indiana (where they made up more than half of all voters) was 10 points smaller than it was in Pennsylvania.

Among whites overall, there is also little evidence of weakening support for Obama: His share of the vote in Indiana and North Carolina was about the same as in Pennsylvania. And regardless of the divide in the primaries, white voters are a challenge for Democrats in general elections. In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry among whites by 17 points, and in 2000, he beat Gore by 24 points among whites.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/05/clintons_broader_base.html

So we're left with:

The offensive part of Clinton's quote -- "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" -- isn't that Clinton is saying white Americans won't support Obama. It's that she's conflating hard-working Americans with white Americans, as if non-white Americans don't work hard also.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/08/clinton-s-comments-not-all-white.aspx

Well, I defy anyone who participated in yesterday's debate to deny that Clinton's recent race-baiting is harming her party and, if not poisoning the entire race, then at least bringing the level of debate down to an unfortunate level.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/08/marni-soupcoff-on-hillary-clinton-s-race-baiting-yeah-that-s-going-to-help-the-party.aspx

USA Today described these as “blunt remarks about race.” When a candidate equates “hard-working Americans” with “white Americans,” I can’t help but wonder if “blunt” is a strong enough adjective.
<...>
By the logic of Clinton’s argument, we should also note that her support among African Americans is quite poor, and the “pattern” is pretty clear. Are we to assume that if she were the nominee, those same voters would back McCain over her? That Clinton couldn’t possibly win because she’d never get the support of African-American Dems? Of course not.

Why, then, characterize the race in this illogical, race-based way?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15470.html

[The Night Owl]

136. Incoherent. {EOM}

[foo_bar]

140. as I said, it's probably a lot of cognitive dissonance for one sitting

You only have to watch a non-FOX Teevee channel or read a non-Murdoch periodical and you'll eventually notice what you're standing for. Or you won't; no skin off my Jewish college-educated proboscis whose Obama vote renders me non-hard-working under the more charitable of your interpretations.

[The Night Owl]

142. I'm not standing for anything. I'm standing against the hate-fueled assumptions being made...

...about a lady who has done a lot for her country and especially for us. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to one of our one. You, on the other hand, are eating one of our own.

Oh well. At least you have finally admitted that an innocuous interpretation of Hillary Clinton's statement is reasonable. If only the other crazed villagers would put their torches and pitchforks down now.

I hate what you guys are doing to the Clintons. I really fucking do.

[foo_bar]

143. by "you guys" do you mean the New York Times (which endorsed Clinton)?

We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.” She added: “There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Yes, there is a pattern ­ a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[The Night Owl]

145. Well, since the writer of the editorial you cite sees value in idle speculation...

...about what is in Hillary Clinton's head, then I might as well engage in some idle speculation about what is in the writer's head. I can't help but wonder if the writer is saying something without really saying it because he or she doesn't really believe it.

[foo_bar]

146. the op-ed page is a product of committee

but it's the same page that endorsed Clinton in the first place.

I can't help but wonder if the writer is saying something without really saying it because he or she doesn't really believe it.

It's not a question of "the writer", this is the official position of the NY Times, "We endorsed Mrs. Clinton...". This is her "base" or it was.

[Raineyb]

148. You're refusing to see racist code when it's so obvious it exists.

You need to get your head out of the sand.

Regards

[SemiCharmedQuark]

45. Yeah, that wasn't funny the first time you posted it either.

[The Night Owl]

47. I can assure you that humor is not the intent of the post. {EOM}

[geek tragedy]

50. Racism: equating hard work with being white.

See also Clinton, H; Buchanan, P.

[The Night Owl]

52. Do you honestly believe that Hillary Clinton equates hard work with being white? {EOM}

[geek tragedy]

53. She did exactly that.

"Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans,"

[The Night Owl]

58. So, if I tell you that I just ate some "delicious red apples" would you assume...

...that I consider only red apples to be delicious?

[geek tragedy]

61. "Decent people, moral people, Christians, are deserting Clinton"

It's a dog whistle that all but hardboiled Clintonista apologists can hear.

[The Night Owl]

62. Answer the question. {EOM}

[geek tragedy]

64. Her statement speaks for itself.

She wasn't talking about apples. She was directly juxtaposing the idea of hard-work with white ancestry.

She's a racist monster.

[The Night Owl]

66. Sophism {EOM}

[frickaline]

108. You make a good point, the logic of the OP is flawed

By this same logic one could easily make the argument from this that college educated people are not hard working, but there was only focus on the word 'white' here.

You can't expect her not to measure in terms of demographics and you can't expect her not to report where her campaign was strong. I don't think its racism for her to do this.

[The Night Owl]

120. I thank you for speaking up. I was starting to feel somewhat alone here. {EOM}

[ForeignSpectator]

133. No but if you say it exactly like she did...

...and actually say "I just ate some delicious, very delicious apples, red apples" it sounds like you might consider only red apples to be delicious.

[The Night Owl]

137. Bizarre reasonsing. {EOM}

[2rth2pwr]

60. How true.

[annie1]

80. lol! excellent.

[anonymous171]

25. Obama can up the unity talk and go in for the kill.

[slinkerwink]

32. good, or we actually can do it ourselves by forcing her out of this race by working our asses

off for Obama in Oregon, Montana, South Dakota.

[Blondiegrrl]

37. If she keeps this up, the only thing she's going to succeed in doing is

to drive more SD's Obama's way.

[DrFunkenstein]

38. That's Up There With "Clinging" As Exhaustion Getting The Best of Them

I'm sure that Clinton did not mean to speak that way.

Taking a cue from the Obama campaign, I'm hoping she didn't mean to speak that way.

[slinkerwink]

41. I think she did mean to speak that way. Begala, Davis, Garin, and Wolfson said the same things.

[milkyway]

44. When she says "hard working Americans, white Americans" is she implying blacks are not hard-working,

or are not Americans, or both, or neither?

[slinkerwink]

56. she's implying that only white Americans are hard-working, and only they're blue collar.

[barb162]

46. Your topic is a complete mis-statement of her comments.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ButterflyBlood]

48. Wait till she gets her ass kicked in Oregon

Not exactly the state you think of being filled with blacks, huh?

[Pastiche423]

77. There are fewer blacks living in Oregon

than any other state I've lived in. In my small town, I've met two (2) black people in the eight years I've lived here!

It is way strange.

But! From state polls, Oregon is going for Obama.

Btw, I am an over 50, WHITE female who will never vote for Hillary Clinton.

[stewie502]

59. have fun getting out of this Hillary lol

[TwilightGardener]

63. If I never saw or heard from this woman again, in any capacity, I'd be perfectly happy with that.

[CreekDog]

68. her coation is so broad

that a college educated white person like me and ANY black person are excluded.

why didn't I think of that????????? :think:

(on edit: I should point out that of those above, that's about 35% of my county which is I guess not as broad as white, non college educated demographic in my county --but what do i know?)

ps-when she talks like that, YOU JUST KNOW MARK PENN HAS NOT BEEN FIRED.

[returnable]

70. Her rationale is racist and flawed.

By her own rationale, she's unelectable in the GE, since she won't be able to carry the African-American vote. After all, she's failed to carry that vote in the primary so obviously it's beyond her reach :eyes:

Just when I was starting to buy into the meme she was gonna bow out gracefully.

The superdels need to put this Nixon in a Pantsuit out of her (and our) misery. Now. Any Clinton apologist who backs her strategy needs to take a good long look in the mirror and think about who they really are.

[AzDar]

71. This is just ugly.

:puke:

[Catherina]

72. Sad. This will soon be her legacy in history books.

It's thoughtful of her to provide succinct quotes. I'm looking forward to seeing a better woman run in 2012 because it would be nice to see a woman break that ceiling, not because she's a woman but because she'd be a good leader.

I think Boxer, Pelosi, and other strong female leaders will put an end to this soon.

[madrchsod]

73. i hope she stays

she`s using her own money and having no effect on barack. if axlerod means what he said, hillary is irrelevant....

is it any wonder why bill clinton wanted axlerod to run his campaign in 2002 and hillary had axlerod make political videos for her senate race....

[dkf]

75. Well if she hadn't lost me earlier, she'd lose me now.

[nsd]

76. Can she not hear the words coming out of her own mouth?

"... working, hard-working Americans, white Americans ..."

Unbelievable.

[ecdab]

78. This is a part of why she lost.

She's a 50+1 politician through and through - and 50+1 politicians are always looking for ways to divide the country into subcategories they can "pick off" or "claim".

Obama talks about the concerns of American people - that's a part of why he won.

[annie1]

79. Her point that whites also matter only really works if she hadn't lost...

so many lilly white states. which she did. otherwise i would agree that many of that states she didn't have a chance in b/c black people are such a large % of the dem voting bloc and are voting obama in at 90%, and in swing states without the 90% voting rate he'da had his ass kicked, but she also loses very white states, so unfortunately her argument doesn't really hold. too many polls show she's not much better against mccain than bam.

[Perry Logan]

82. YOU ARE ACCUSING MILLIONS OF DEMOCRATS OF SUPPORTING A RACIST. PLEASE LEAVE MY PARTY.

[jgraz]

87. Um.... Perry?

[DemVet]

99. Perry is correct...deal with it.

[foo_bar]

101. ZOMG THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN AMERICA

Indeed, the number of Southern black legislators elected in 1872 was not matched again until the 1990s (in the wake of Thornburg v. Gingles), and, though black officeholding declined sharply by 1880, even that much reduced number was not again reached until 1972, seven years after the Voting Rights Act.

Black (male) political participation remained extraordinary high long after federal military forces were withdrawn from the South in 1877. In 1880, two-thirds of adult black men voted in the Presidential election; even in the 1890s, half of black men still voted in key governor's races in Southern states.

<...>

it took several years of the self-conscious construction and organized mobilization of a militarized white supremacy, often against a divided white business community willing to accommodate black political participation for the sake of stability, to enable white "redemption" of the South. This step-by-step process eventually culminated in sufficient white control to produce new constitutional conventions, or suffrage-restricting constitutional amendments through referenda, in every former Confederate state, starting with Mississippi in 1890 and ending with Georgia in 1908.

<...>

The effect of these disenfranchising constitutions throughout the South, combined with statutory suffrage restrictions, was immediate and devastating. In Louisiana, in 1896 there had been 130,334 black voters on the registration rolls and around the same number of white voters (the state=s population was about 50 percent white and black); by 1900, two years after the new constitution, registered black voters numbered a mere 5,320.36 By 1910, 730 registered black voters were left (less than 0.5 percent
of eligible black men). In 27 of the state's 60 parishes, not a single black voter was registered any longer; in 9 more parishes, only one black voter was. In South Carolina, black legislators had been the majority in the lower house during Reconstruction; by 1896, the entire state had only 5,500 black voters registered.37 In Alabama, in 1900 there were 181, 471 eligible black voters, but only 3,000 were registered after the new constitutional provisions took effect.38 In Virginia, there was a 100% drop -- in other words, to zero -- in estimated black voter turnout between the Presidential elections of 1900 and 1904. North Carolina managed the same complete elimination of black voter turnout over an eight year period, between the Presidential elections of 1896 and 1904.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=224731

[Enrique]

83. posts like this don't help race relations

it's an irresponsible accusation worded recklessly and discussed thoughtlessly.

Racism should be taken seriously.

[slinkerwink]

84. which is why I'm taking her statement seriously. It's a horribly divisive one

and probably calculated for West Virginia and Kentucky to play upon white resentment there.

[Enrique]

88. your thread title shows you're not serious

I don't agree with some of your charges but I'm not going to discuss it because I it's not a subject I want to play games with.

[foo_bar]

94. that's #34

34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~mcisaac/emc598ge/Unpacking.html "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack"

[Enrique]

96. that's a useful list

very useful for examining one's own attitudes and behaviors.

As a weapon to use against others? Not as useful.

[foo_bar]

100. I don't perceive knowledge as a weapon, but I can see why you'd feel that way

I'm genuinely beginning to worry about you guys a little, like in a Jonestown way.

[Enrique]

102. look at the spirit in which the list was created

I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my life. I have chosen those conditions that I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographic location, though of course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can tell, my African American coworkers, friends, and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place and time of work cannot count on most of these conditions.

Notice the focus on the author's own attitudes?

Notice how there's not even a hint that she composed the list to accuse others?

I believe you didn't understand that fine article you posted.

[foo_bar]

103. I believe that spirit is technically called "empathy"

I don't agree with every bullet point, but I respect people that try to understand the plight of others. They're called "liberals".

[OzarkDem]

85. ..

:hurts:

[rucky]

86. ZERO leadership with this decision.

[4themind]

91. Admiral Ackbar: It's a trap!

if he comes back and denounces her because of this, she'll openly start saying that SHE is saying they're hardworking while juxtaposing him as describing them as "bitter"(to re-ignite this countroversy just like when she tried to re-ignite the wright thing when sniper-gate got big) Obama shouldn't go into any strong denouncements on her, let these race-baiting stuff sink on it's own feet, while promoting uinty for better economic development for millions of americans of ALL races, that were left behind. She. is. trying. to. change. the media narrative from "obama is the nominee" to ..well can he win the "white vote", as long as it creates doubt and resentment it HELPS her. Even by the outrage over these comments, it still puts the issue out there. Don't get outraged, just brush it off your shoulders and win. The best way to "denounce" these comments is to defeat those that propagate it. Let's not take our eyes of OUR strategy and OUR message, by RESPONDING directly to hers let's just close this thing out, and close this thinking out of the democratic party. Forever.

[MattBaggins]

130. Nah it's easy to counter

Next campaign rally

I just don't understand where Hillary is coming from. As I stand here before you and every day that I cross this great nation; I meet thousands of hard working Americans that want to support my candidacy, that want me to work as hard for them as they do in their everyday lives. I meet folks from many different backgrounds; races, religions and creeds and all of them are hardworking patriotic Americans. The majority of my supporters are white Americans just as hardworking as any other American and I am proud that they and all of my supporters have chosen me to be the nominee for President of the United States of America.

[ccharles000]

92. she is a wonderful person.

[foo_bar]

95. did you know you have a Berkeley Software Distribution avatar?

The UNIX operating system derivative? You probably thought it was Satan.

[Enrique]

93. she mentions education too

hardworking Americans is part of her populist vs. elites rhetoric.

[DemVet]

98. It's not OK for HRC to pander to whites but IS OK for BHO to pander to blacks?

OK, just as long as the double standard is evident to you all.

[NorthernSpy]

115. Blacks are a 14.1% minority: they HAVE to think about their interests in specific terms.

Whites have the security of being overwhelmingly in the majority. Most political and economic power is in white hands. White Americans' interests are always at the forefront of every policy discussion, even if not they're not explicitly labelled as such.


When an already powerful majority resorts to racially conscious rhetoric against a much less powerful minority, that's bullying.

[Raineyb]

151. When the hell did Obama pander to blacks?

He rarely brings up race at all unless the media decides to make it an issue.

Your refusal to see is either willful blindess or agreement.

Regards

[Darth_Kitten]

105. Take a look at yourselves, Obamabots.......

Take a really close look. One moment Hillary's uppity, the next moment she's racist.

Hmmm, not very INCLUSIVE are you? :sarcasm:

[theboss]

110. Blacks don't work hard, I guess

Shame.

[The Night Owl]

118. If I walk into a car dealership and tell the salesperson that I want a fast red car...

...should the salesperson assume that I believe red cars to be the only kinds of fast cars?

Shame indeed.

[U4ikLefty]

141. No, walk into a car dealership and ask to talk to the sales manager

Then say "I need a salesman, a good-honest salesman, a white salesman."

[NorthernSpy]

113. She's trash.

Unprincipled, pandering, destructive trash.

[skipos]

114. Clinton/Ron Paul on the Stormfront Party ticket! nt

[Thrill]

123. People fail to mention Hillary's problem with Younger voters

The People 40 and under

[MattBaggins]

131. Under 40

Lazy bastards

[gabby garcia]

125. frickin unbelievable

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."

she is saying the white voters are more important and we all should know it. tell me, tell me how that is not a racist view!

[redqueen]

132. "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,"

Whaaa?

If that were true, wouldn't she be winning the nomination, and not struggling to catch up?

[gorekerrydreamticket]

147. Yes! n/m

[grantcart]

138. I wonder what happens in the car after the speech when she is

sitting next to a couple of AA secret service agents?

[foo_bar]

144. Driving Miss Hillary?

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.