Are the Clintons playing Dixiecrat and "Ethnic White Backlash" politics?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

Before Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, thousands of African-Americans were Republicans, because because Southern Democrats did not want them in "their" party, appeals to ethnic white "backlash" against Civil Rights were common in Northeastern and Midwestern Democratic politics, there were almost no white Republicans in the South, and Republicans elsewhere sought "left cover" from the tiny minority of nonwhites in their ranks.

In the early 1960s, "Dixiecrats" had been mobilized for decades as one of the biggest power blocs within the Democratic Party. Later in the decade, today's Democratic Coalition begin to take shape, and with Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", Southern white flight to the Republicans accelerated and ultimately became almost complete.

Are the Clintons trying to build another White Power bloc in the Party, perhaps reattracting some Southern white racialists to the Democratic side, and to diminish the power of African-American Democratic voters in the South and in Blue States?

Hillary Clinton's White House strategy since she went negative, then BALLISTIC starting in March, seems to me to have 3 objectives:

(1) Polarize the Democratic party racially.
(2) Become the spokesperson for white backlash.
(3) Poison Obama's chances in November by denying him the white backlash vote she stirred up.

Below are some thoughts and some links that have influenced my thinking.

What do you think?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Polarize the Democratic Party racially, endangering the strong Black-Feminist-Hispanic-Labor coalition that has been the base of the Party since the 1960s. See HRC's interview in yesterday's USA Today at http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm , and her chief strategist Geoff Garin (see below) on how Hil's and Bill's racialized language has driven down Obama's support among southern whites from 52 percent in Virgina ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#VADEM ) to 37 percent in North Carolina this week ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM ).

2. Become the sole spokesperson for a bloc of downscale white Democrats, in the South and in pockets of "ethnic white backlash" in Northeastern/ Midwestern/Blue states, who would bolt the Democratic Party for John McCain if Obama were nominated. Hillary has endeavored mightily to conflate her racial polarization efforts with efforts to seat rulebreaking delegates from a name-recognition no-campaigning farce in Florida and a Soviet-style one-candidate "election" in Michigan.

3. Poison Obama's chances in November by denying him the "white backlash" vote she has stirred up. Despite her "Yes Yes Yes" debate response in Philadelphia to a question about Obama's electability, Hillary seems determined to whisper to Superdelegates until Denver that Obama CANNOT win in November, thanks in large part to the racial hornet's nest she and Bill have broken open within the Party, using "dog-whistle" polarization tactics since South Carolina ("Fairy tale", "elitist"="uppity").

At the Convention in August, presumable Hillary will voice her "concerns" about the elctability of an African-American openly.

Even if, as I believe is probable, her strategy does not work in Denver, and Obama becomes the nominee for 2008, Hil's and Bill's calendar for a Clinton White House dynasty may simply be set back four years to 2012. After the Clintons have denied another Democrat the chance to supplant the Bush Dynasty, I believe they would simply commence their 2012 Clinton WH Restoration campaign in November.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_chief_strategist_north.php ;

'Hillary Chief Strategist: North Carolina Loss Represented Progress Because We Won Among White Voters

By Greg Sargent - May 7, 2008, 11:15AM

On the Hillary conference call, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin made the case for her electability in some of the most explicitly race-based terms I've heard yet.

Garin argued that the North Carolina contest, which Obama won by 14 points, represented "progress" for Hillary because she did better among white voters there than she did in Virginia. "When we began in North Carolina," Garin said, "our internal polling and much of the public polling we were running exactly even with white voters." Garin said that the Virginia electorate was the "closest white electorate in the country" to North Carolina, and added that Hillary "started even" among whites in North Carolina, and "ended up earning a significant win of 24 points." ...

Put in the context of the Hillary campaign's chief argument that she's the more electable Dem, Garin's overall implication here is that her success among white voters in North Carolina yesterday is "progress" in the sense that it strengthens her case for electability.

In other words, it's an explicit, and unabashed, linking of her claim of electability to her success among whites.'

[TwilightGardener]

1. Giving you a big fat rec. Excellent post.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. Thanks for getting the ball rolling. That was my fastest trip to the Greatest Page

ever

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. "White people don't vote for Obama."

"You want to be with the cool white people, don't you?"

"You don't want to be with those types."

"We're your friends."

[Zodiak]

3. It is an absolutely disgusting campaign strategy, not worthy of a Democrat

And yes, I believe you are spot on in your analysis.

We all expected her to at least try to finish gracefully by changing tone to a more unified one in her campaign, but all I have seen from her spokespeople is more race-baiting.

The Dixiecrats of various stripes cannot be trusted, anyways. Look at the voting record of the DLC, Blue Dogs, New Dems, etc. and tell me if they have been of any use in the People's party. They are an anchor around our necks and make the party look divided and bereft of ideas.

If the racists want to go to McCain solely because Obama is of African descent, there is the door. I won't even miss you.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Anything and Every DAMN thing in order to win. The Clintons are shameless. eom

[flpoljunkie]

5. Bob Shrum just said on MSNBC the Clintons are now "playing the race card." Buchanan defended them

Bob Shrum just said on Andre Mitchell's show on MSNBC that the Clintons are now "playing the race card" with this interview, and that this is very harmful to the Dempcratic party. We see Bill, once considered champion by blacks, now playing the Bubba race card. Strong and needed stuff from Bob Shrum!

Pat Buchanan is now defending Hillary, of course, saying Reagan Democrats are supporting Hillary saying she's using the Nixon strategy of using Catholics/working class whites to divide the electorate.

[roguevalley]

8. its dangerous for the country. damn the Clintons for this.

[Coexist]

10. Pat Buchanan, of all people, should not be

considered a "go to guy" when race is an issue. He is a disgusting person.

[KittyWampus]

36. someone should put a montage of Pat's most racist comments on UTube so we could loop it

send it out and let it go viral.

He is the pits.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

40. I'll never forget when Buchanan said "Jack Kemp has gone NATIVE", prsumably

referring to the former Republican VP candidate's long association with other football players who happened to be African-American when Kemp was on a pro team (he was a Buffalo Bill IIRC).

[Coexist]

41. I wish someone would. Here are some quotes from that asshat:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5207181#5207739

And:

On race relations in the late 1940s and early 1950s: "There were no politics to polarize us then, to magnify every slight. The 'negroes' of Washington had their public schools, restaurants, bars, movie houses, playgrounds and churches; and we had ours." (Right from the Beginning, Buchanan's 1988 autobiography, p. 131)

And:

White House adviser Buchanan urged President Nixon in an April 1969 memo not to visit "the Widow King" on the first anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination, warning that a visit would "outrage many, many people who believe Dr. King was a fraud and a demagogue and perhaps worse.... Others consider him the Devil incarnate. Dr. King is one of the most divisive men in contemporary history." (New York Daily News, 10/1/90)

And:

In a column sympathetic to ex-Klansman David Duke, Buchanan chided the Republican Party for overreacting to Duke and his Nazi "costume": "Take a hard look at Duke's portfolio of winning issues and expropriate those not in conflict with GOP principles, reverse discrimination against white folks." (syndicated column, 2/25/89)

And:

Trying to justify apartheid in South Africa, he denounced the notion that "white rule of a black majority is inherently wrong. Where did we get that idea? The Founding Fathers did not believe this." (syndicated column, 2/7/90) He referred admiringly to the apartheid regime as the "Boer Republic": "Why are Americans collaborating in a U.N. conspiracy to ruin her with sanctions?" (syndicated column, 9/17/89)

[Coexist]

7. "Become the spokesperson for white backlash."

I obviously don't have access to her data, but I don't think there is a big enough "white backlash" anymore to sink Obama.

At least that is my sincere hope. The 'old guard' is giving way.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

12. There does seem to be a white backlash away from voting for Obama.

In the OP I provided links to CNN exit polls showing a 52 percent white vote for Obama in the Virgina primary and a 37 percent white vorte for Obama in North Carolina just weeks later. This was at a time when HRC was ignoring the Republicans and concentrating on negative attacks on Obama with a racial tinge.

Obama's support among people under 30 has held firm, but Hillary seems to have tightened her hold on the "Hallmark Channel" demographic. Some of he "old guard" from before the 60s Civil Rights revolution is gone, but much of it still is around for awhile. The Clintons may be making it OK for some of them to at least think some of what they used to think, and providing an outlet for some of those old impulses at the voting booth.

[Coexist]

14. but I think there's a good percentage of those

who may prefer Hillary, but will vote for any Democrat in the fall.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

16. I hope you are right. But Hillary's pitch wasn't, "He's good but I'm better". It was

"He does not pass the Commander-in-Chief test" and "He's elitist" and "He's not Muslim, as far as I know"

I suspect the perhaps 15 percent of the NC white vote Obama lost to Hillary's negative campaigning is mainly inside the 18 percent that would vote McCain were Obama the nominee in CNN's exit poll ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM ).

[CTLawGuy]

33. well NC doesn't have a siztable "non-southern" white

population like those in NOVA. NC is more typical of his white support in other southern states, and an improvement over his showing in MS for instance.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

37. NC is more like MS than like VA? Isn't the Research Triangle and supposedly

progressive Charlotte (which went for HRC IIRC John King at his CNN supertouchscreen Tuesday night) the equal of NOVA?

Don't let the NC Chamber of Commerce hear what you said.

[CTLawGuy]

48. that's true

but the research triangle is not the suburbs of DC. Our increased success in VA has a lot to do with the growth of NOVA as people (often not from the south) who work in Washington move out there.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

49. So yr explanation is fewer "Yankee carpetbaggers" in NC than in VA?

[The Night Owl]

47. OMFG! You just cited a voting trend amongst white voters.

You are employing the strategy of the Dixiecrats!

[invictus]

9. K & R

[flpoljunkie]

11. Yes, they are!

[TexasObserver]

13. Yes. Hillary's become George Wallace in a pantsuit and a mullet.

What next, standing in the door of University of Alabama?!

[Two Americas]

15. hard to avoid

We have a strong Black candidate with a highly successful campaign. Hard to say whether Clinton is stirring up racial division, or whether people accusing her of that are stirring up racial division. Of course a candidate will make the best pitch for the strength of their campaign, and of course they will cite their relative strength among different groups. That isn't necessarily polarizing the party racially. This is not to deny that racism is a factor in this election cycle. Of course it is.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

18. Have you seen Mike Barnicle's warning to Hillary to pull back from the brink

of what I've suggested here?

From http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-barnicle/race-is-all-the-clintons_b_100660.html

"Race Is All the Clintons Have Left; by Mike Barnicle-- Posted May 7, 2008

... 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. Now, faced with a mathematical mountain climb that even Stephen Hawking could not ascend, the Clintons -- and it is indeed both of them -- are just about to paste a bumper sticker on the rear of the collapsing vehicle that carries her campaign. It reads: VOTE WHITE. ...

So, after all the years they have been with us, after all the triumph and tastelessness, the accomplishments and embarrassments, we're about to watch them act out an updated, mixed gender re-make of Thelma and Louise with Bill behind the wheel, the two of them sharing a knowing look, a wink, in the front seat as they take the Democrat party right off the cliff, the whole thing crashing and burning in a racial divide both he and she sought to heal all those years ago in Little Rock and then Washington.

Look at the numbers, the Clintons say: Your son didn't get into the college that was his first choice but the black kid with lower SATs did? Your brother didn't get the civil service slot on the fire department because he was white and there is an unspoken quota? You didn't get the promotion because corporate diversity policy mutely suggested a person of color get it? Your kid is being bused an hour and half a day to a public school with low reading scores? Scratch a sore, baby. Vote for Clinton. ..."

[Two Americas]

19. maybe

Passions are elevated right now, and charges and counter-charges are flying furiously.

There is no way to expand the number of people voting Democratic without bringing in people who are currently in the enemy camp. By the logic Obama supporters are using, any candidate that attracted white rural voters would by definition be doing something racist, and any candidate who drew Reagan Democratic back to the fold and out of the clutches of the Republicans would by definition be "pandering to the right wingers."

We would need some sort of clear and unmistakable themes or ideas that were causing people to vote one way or the other to discern between "pandering" and good campaigning. Certainly the Obama movement is full of people who argue that Obama's positions may not be that good, but they have hope that what he does once in office will be good. The lack of clarity and certainty and specifics naturally enough leads to all sorts of speculation. Wonderful things are projected onto one candidate, all sorts of evil things onto the other candidate, and a completely different set of standards is used in each case.

I don't see that Clinton going after the white vote is "playing the race card" anymore than Obama supporters accusing her of racism is "playing the race card." Could be but we don't know. We are just guessing and then spinning our guesses into plausible sounding arguments for the purpose of reinforcing our own guesses and our own narrative about events.

I don't know that "whites are supporting Clinton" is true so much as it is true that Blacks are voting for Obama. Why is that? Because we have a brilliant man running a spectacular campaign with a serious chance at getting into the White House. Back when Jesse Jackson was running, I worked for him and supported him and so did 90% or more of the people in my neighborhood. The white candidates did better out in the white districts. That does not prove that those white candidates were running a racist campaign, nor that they were racists. One some level, of course they were - everything in our society is corrupted and driven by racism. Nothing new about that. But it does not help us to understand racism by scape goating a person and pointing and saying "there it is!! There is the racism!! It is over there! It isn't me! I am on the 'accusing other people of racism so therefore I can;t be accused of it' side!!!" That is just a way for many to not look into the mirror.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

21. "Going after the white vote is not 'playing the race card'"? How does what Hillary has

been doing differ from what 50s-era Southern pols Faubus, Bilbo, Eastland, Stennis, Thurmond, Wallace, etc did?

See also the CLASSIC DU thread applying the reasoning of USSC case Palmore v Sidoti to the use of other people's racism for your own personal gain, at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5876600&mesg_id=5876600

And wouldn't you make distinctions between "passive" use of others' prejudices and STIRRING UP others' racial prejudices with "dog-whistle" sound bytes ("Fairy-tale", "naive", "elitist" = "uppity" in the ears of some of the "booboisie")?

[Two Americas]

24. interesting opinion

Just because it does happen - the use of other people's racism for personal gain - doesn't prove that it is happening in this case. That opinion is interesting, but not demonstrated yet to me to be true in this case.

You ask how "what Hillary has been doing differ from what 50s-era Southern pols Faubus, Bilbo, Eastland, Stennis, Thurmond, Wallace, etc did?" How are they similar in your view? (serious question, not a challenge.) If there were a choice on a ballot between Clinton and any of the people you are mentioning here, are you saying that we wouldn't vote for Clinton? It is just not supportable that anything Clinton has done even remotely compares with what these segregationist did in pandering to racism. It just is not there.

I understand the "the use of other people's racism for your own personal gain" but things are little more complicated than that. In the Democratic primaries accusing someone of using of other people's racism for their own personal gain can actually itself be using the issue for personal gain.

I understand that in articleman's opinion Clinton's campaign is parallel to the case cited there. I do not see it. I am not saying that it is impossible - I can't read her mind. Yes, IF Clinton's argument were that since there is racism, that therefore she will say that we need to pander to people based on their racism, then yes that would be what articleman is guessing is happening, and that would be something we all should be opposed to. But we can't know that, so the accusations against Clinton for doing that become the very thing we are accusing her of. We are accusing the people of accusing the people of accusing people. I think that calling Clinton a racist neatly fits into promoting the Obama campaign for many people. THAT is cynically using racism for another cause itself.

Clinton is doing better in white districts - comparatively. That is not necessarily racism. If we had another white candidate, and that candidate was getting 90% of the Black vote, we would not be jumping to these conclusions and calling her a racist because she was doing better in white districts. This is all a function of having a very strong Black candidate in the race.

Since I started this post I did something I rarely do - watch TV news - and I heard a panel of commentators talking about the primaries. For weeks here I have read the charges and counter-charges between supporters of the two candidates, and I wonder where people get these talking points and weird ideas. They aren't coming from either candidate, but there the talking heads are trotting out every single cliché and inflammatory talking pint we see here all of the time. Those news commentators are not reporting on anything the candidates are doing or saying, they are merely giving their own flamboyant, dramatic and very far-fetched interpretations of what is happening. Worse, they don't even have the integrity of saying "this is my opinion," they say "people are saying...." The whole thing is a bunch of bullshit, and it is obvious to me that too many people here are mouthing the nonsense they hear form the mass media - on both sides, it is not merely the supporters of one candidate doing this.

So I say that both candidates, with all of their flaws, are far, far better than their supporters, and the fights around here are a bunch of moronic nonsense that is all fueled by useless and irresponsible media talking heads

[ProgressiveEconomist]

25. I appreciate your sincerity, but IMO you are in a state of "cognitive dissonance".

spinning convoluted webs of words rather than simply recognizing very disturbing patterns of Hillary's BEHAVIOR I've laid out.

You did not respond to the "dog-whistle" part of my reply #21, Even though you don't usually watch TV/cable, did you read about, and what did you think about--

--"fairy tale" (Bill Clinton during the SC primary);

--"naive" (Hillary's debate reply to Obama's plea for more foreign diplomacy rather than "preemptive war");

--"elitist", which many in the ethnic strongholds and Southern small towns HRC is targeting may hear as "uppity" when applied to a brilliant and articulate African-American?

Don't you see a pattern of trying to INCREASE the "booboisie's" racial motivations, in order to profit from it at the polls? How would YOU explain the 15 percent drop in Obama's white support from VA to very-similar-demographically NC (See the CNN links in the OP)?

[Two Americas]

26. now don't start throwing that around

Let's not start using "cognitive dissonance" as an ad hominem attack. Were I in a state of "cognitive dissonance" that would mean that I was saying one thing to be true, while knowing on some level that something else contradictory was actually true. That could only be because I were a Clinton supporter - which I am not - or because I was denying racism. I just came here from a thread where I challenged a couple of Clinton supporters on their racist remarks, and I am one of only a handful of people here who can be relied upon to speak out strongly and consistently about racism. I certainly hope that the hundreds of people here who have become converts to anti-racism on behalf of the Obama campaign will follow through in other areas now. Dozens and dozens of times at DU I have been told things such as "you see racism everywhere" and the like. Before the Obama campaign it was very difficult to get many DUers to see or acknowledge racism, and now that has dramatically changed. Obviously, such a dramatic change must have at least something to do with Obama partisanship, and for many white supporters I believe that much of that is tokenism. To this day on subjects of racism that do not involve Obama partisanship, it is difficult to get much support when you speak out against racism.

So, I don't have some sort of vested interest in Clinton, nor in denying racism, that would lead me to be claiming one thing to be true while denying another oppositional thing that I knew was true.

I do not believe that "naive" and "fairy tale" and "elitist" are necessarily "dog whistles" nor racist. They could be, but it has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction yet.

Sure, racists could interpret "elitist" as "uppity" - one thing for certain, DU Obama supporters sure made that connection in a big hurry. But to a racist, any Black person seeking a position of power is "uppity" and Clinton could certainly have picked a better "dog whistle" than that, were that her intention. It could have been her intention - I can't read her mind - but it has not been demonstrated to me that it was with certainty her intention. She is a smart enough politician to at the very least be careful around that subject. "Elitist" is also a contentious issue within the Democratic party right now in ways that have nothing to do with Obama's candidacy nor with race.

"Naive" refers to a lack of experience - you may disagree with that, but it is pretty standard political campaign fare, and I think would have been used against a new and relatively inexperienced candidate regardless of race.

ANY criticism of a Black candidate will be grabbed up by racists as justification for rejecting Obama - but anyone who would do that would reject a Black candidate regardless. You can't expect a politician to run against Obama and not criticize him. That is what all politicians do.

President Clinton said "fairy tale" in regards to Obama on Iraq, and would have said the same thing about a white candidate in the same situation.

His remarks about Jackson, comparing Jackson's primary wins to Obama's, were poorly chosen, but again not necessarily racist. A Black candidate can do well in the primaries in predominantly Black districts, and not so well in predominantly white districts. That is the sad reality in the country, and ALL politicians pay attention to that.

Yes, I know that the pundits, and many people at DU are hammering on the Clinton is a racist theme. I think the pundits are doing it because it is inflammatory and good for ratings - it is despicable to watch them fan the flames of racial hatred. I think people here are picking up on it because of their Obama partisanship. And as I said, there absolutely is racism involved in this primary season - all the more reason that we should get it right and not jump to conclusions.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

27. You certainly are generous with "benefit of doubt". What would it take to convince

you that the Clintons are deliberately attempting to polarize and split the party by race?

Would Hillary have to stand at the door of the convention in Denver wielding a baseball bat, shouting "N****rs go home!"?

[Two Americas]

28. oh come on

I have watched every sort of racist campaign over the last 40 years, and heard every sort of coded racist and "dog whistle" message. Yes, racism permeates our society. Yes, this is a primary where race is a factor. Yes, the Black community is overwhelmingly voting for Obama, and yes Clinton has focused on white voters and yes she is making the argument - correct or not - that she will do better with white voters. That is a political calculation that has been made by all candidates in all races. That is as much because we live in a racist society as it is because the particular candidate is racist. Do you think that the Obama strategists are not talking about race and voting blocs? Pretty difficult situation, and Clinton has done all right in my view, and so has Obama. Not great - I don't know that we will see "great" in my lifetime when it comes to race. But we are not talking George Wallace here or David Duke, or even Ronald Reagan. We live in a racist society that is still largely segregated and polarized. That is the reality. It may be something that Clinton is not negotiating with much finesse, but she certainly is not worsening things or causing the problem. If Clinton is the racist that people are claiming she is, then so is every one of our white politicians - which is probably true to some extent, but we need to make some distinctions and have some perspective and proportion here.

Both candidates face enormous challenges, and are doing a decent job under the circumstances. The Wright BS from the media put Obama in a very difficult position. A Black man seeking a position of power caries a much greater burden - that should not be overlooked or understated. Likewise, I think Clinton faces challenges that male candidates do not. We WILL be running either a Black man or a woman for presidency, almost certainly Obama. We need to get it right. Start screaming "racist" at Clinton, and we have completely distorted the context, and weakened the solidarity, that we will need to fight back when the serious dog whistle crap starts from the Republicans. Lumping Clinton and Stennis and Maddox and Wallace all in the same category has the practical effect of making those racists look better more than it does make Clinton look worse.

[KittyWampus]

39. if you haven't heard the blatant and subtle racial crap coming from the Clinton's you are either

in denial, suffering from cognitive dissonance or lying.

That isn't an ad hominem attack. It's an objective observation bourn out by so many others observing the same. Because now even the Mediawhores are beginning to acknowledge it.

So you are like the girl who falls for the jerk. Everyone tells her what a jerk he is, but she doesn't see it.

Apparently you will need to see the corpse of the Democratic party splattered on the pavement before reality sets in.

Unfortunately, you are part of the problem.

[The Night Owl]

46. "It's an objective observation bourn out by so many others observing the same..."

I see you're using the Obamaton Dictionary...

objectivity{noun}

Pronunciation{ob-jik-tiv-i-tee}
Function: all purpose

1 : judgment based what a lot of people are saying

2 : judgment based on idle speculation

2 : subjectivity

synonyms: see bias

[Two Americas]

51. we have a real problem here

I am more than willing to discuss the topic of racism. Search my posts. However, by characterizing me as being in denial, as a liar, as "suffering from cognitive dissonance," and as being "part of the problem" - all because I disagree with you, and a relatively mild disagreement at that and expressed with utmost respect and consideration - is not productive.

This line of attack you are taking - and insinuating that a person is a liar is character assassination and is an attack - under the guise of ferreting out and exposing racism and identifying racists can, ironically, only poison the well and make honest and courageous discussion of the topic of racism more difficult. At a time when the party is about to run a Black man for the presidency, this can only hurt.

This is not an easy topic to discuss. Passions are elevated, and there is much confusion and misdirection around the subject of racism. We live in a largely segregated and highly polarized society. I have made a great effort here in response to you to be very clear and to think through carefully exactly what I was saying and how I was saying it. You have ignored most of my points, and insist upon returning the focus again and again back to me - placing the burden on the messenger and steering clear of addressing the content of the message.

I worked for Jesse Jackson's campaigns for the presidency, I worked for the campaigns of my US Representative, John Conyers. I have worked with over the years and knew personally my state representative, Jackie Vaughn III, I worked for the campaigns of Detroit's first Black mayor, Coleman Young. I am well familiar with every sort of dog whistle politics, every sort of racist campaign tactic. I campaigned for Bill Clinton in Detroit, and I saw the support he had in my community - far more support and enthusiasm than Mondale, Dukakis or other white candidates ever got.

This campaign season is an unprecedented opportunity to expand the discussion about race and gender, an opportunity to participate in and contribute to significant and vital and long overdue social change. Quick judgments, simplistic analysis, and divisive and sloppy rhetoric are not helpful or constructive.

[The Night Owl]

45. Next stop: Godwin Station. Please have your ticket ready. {EOM}

[The Night Owl]

44. An excellent analysis. You should post it as a topic. {EOM}

[uponit7771]

17. K&R

[PoliticalAmazon]

20. They are pandering to bigots, and are more blatant than Trent Lott EVER was. n/t

[David Zephyr]

22. David Zephyr calls him William Jefferson Davis Clinton.

The name fits him perfectly.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

23. Kick!

[democracy1st]

29. David Zephyr is a smart man

:kick:

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

30. In a word, no

In more than a word, most of the race-bating that has gone on in this campaign is a result of extrapolation by the blogosphere and not from the words and deeds of either campaign. Hillary has made a concerted effort to reach out to middle class white males, a group of Democrats who used to be solidly in our camp but who drifted away in the 1980's. There's nothing IN THIS WORLD wrong with trying to bring these voters back into the fold, and to suggest that the spouse of America's first "black" president is racist is a little more than hard to accept on face value.

Combine the 24 hour news cycle with the fast-and-loose nature of blogging, and then mix in a case of hypersensitivity on racial maters, and you've got people blithering all day long about this candidate's "code words" or that candidate's "divisiveness" when they're doing nothing that hasn't been done in the past.

Take a deep breath people.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

35. Not just "in the blogosphere". Have you seen todays NYT editorial? And thus not

Not just "in the blogosphere". Have you seen todays NYT editorial? And thus not

"hypersensitivity on racial matters". From http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09fri1.html :

"Sen. Clinton and the Campaign; Published: May 9, 2008

... Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake-- for herself, her party and for the nation-- if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones....

Win or lose, Mrs. Clinton�s reputation will suffer more harm than it already has.... She owes more to millions of Americans who have voted for her (and particularly to New Yorkers, who are entitled to expect that if she loses, she will return to the Senate with her influence and integrity intact). ...

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."

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. My case in point...

"Disturbing racial overtones" opines the New York Times, without bothering to cite a single case where Clinton has resorted to race-bating. In a campaign where a white candidate is running against a black candidate, there will always be racial fault lines. But somehow it is Senator Clinton whose campaign is "disturbing" and not Senator Obama's. And before you read something into that last sentence (as is the tendency around here) I voted for Obama in the WI Primary and strongly perfer him to Hillary. I'm suggesting that everybody needs to stop screaming "RACISM" at every turn.

[carolinayellowdog]

31. Not sure the NC/VA difference is attributable to them

David Sirota has noted that the higher the black percentage of the primary electorate, the lower the white percentage for Obama. Only states in a danger zone where the white racists are not quite outnumbered by the black vote-- OH, PA, IN-- are unwinnable for Obama. (I'm not saying that white Virginians in general are less racist than whites in OH, PA, IN, but our racists are a lot less likely to call themselves Democrats.) The Clintons have certainly poisoned the Democratic party's internal race relations unconscionably. But I'm not sure they made the NC white voters more racist than they would have been; Obama's victory in VA and MD would always have been bigger than in NC.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

32. "Carolina racists are less likely to call themselves Ds"--Wouldn't that lead to NC whites

going for Obama MORE than VA whites did?

But Obama got 52 percent of the white vote in Virginia and, after weeks of negative "dog-whistle" attacks by HRC, only 37 percent of the white vote in NC (see the CNN exit poll links in the OP).

I don't understand your comment. Shouldn't things have gone the other way if a higher percentage of Carolina racists call themselves Republicans than in Virginia?

[AlinPA]

34. That is a bad move for Clinton. The "hard working" thing is amazing. Yuk. nt

[K Gardner]

42. They have absolutely NO shame and no Integrity. Excellent post. K&R

[The Night Owl]

50. So, you wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton if Barack Obama weren't running? {EOM}

[The Night Owl]

43. The difference between the Dixiecrats and the Clintons is that...

...the Dixiecrats wanted racial divisions and the Clintons are only pointing out racial divisions as represented by voting trends.

The mentality I'm seeing from most of the people participating in this thread reminds me of the mentality I see from right wingers when I argue with them about the conflict in Iraq. Anytime I point out to a right winger an upward trend of violence in Iraq as represented by casualties and fatalities, the right winger accuses me of wanting mayhem and death in Iraq. Similarly, anytime the Clintons point out voting trends amongst certain segments of the population as represented by race, certain people here accuse them of wanting racial division.