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
We all like to slice and dice the electorate, and sometimes the politicians themselves get in on the act.
It was such a moment that got Barack Obama in trouble last month when he explained to San Francisco donors his difficulty in reaching small town Pennsylvania voters who, he felt, had lost faith in Washington’s ability to solve their economic problems and so “cling to religion, and guns” and other facets of life that seem more familiar and comfortable. It was an inartful comment that drew charges of cultural elitism. No, he didn’t believe people became religious because they were bitter at losing their jobs. But his quote suggested that voters were taking refuge in religion and other aspects of culture (some of which were negative) only because of politics.
Well, if the USA Today interview with Clinton today is accurate, then she just made an appalling gaffe that goes well beyond the Bittergate comment.
She made the case for her continuation in the campaign by referencing her ability to win a broader coalition against the Republicans in the fall. One element of that coalition that has responded to her, and not to Obama, is non-college educated whites – particularly older ones. But instead of using the typical “blue collar voters” frame, she employed explicitly racial language that closely comports with classic racist rhetoric from the likes of George Wallace and Jesse Helms in the past.
She said, without baiting, that she wins “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans,” and Obama cannot reach such voters. The implication is, of course, that hard-working goes hand-in-hand with white. Never mind that Obama has won hard-working black Americans, or that he’s won whites everywhere outside the South and the Rust Belt.
The “hard-working Americans, white Americans” is a classic Wallace/Helms/Buchanan equation of whiteness with hard work and honesty. The opposite is either effete white intellectuals who don’t work, or lazy blacks who also don’t work. In fact, the Reagan coalition GOP even dropped the word “white,” knowing that “hard-working” and “law-abiding” already implied, in their minds, white people.
I don’t think Hillary Clinton really believes that only white people are hard-working. But she has to know that such phrasing is downright toxic given the racially polarized electorate in the primary. She has been accused – often unfairly – of race-baiting throughout the campaign. But this comment takes the cake and one can only hope it was a slip of the tongue and nothing else.
What makes this worse is the timing. She thinks the next big race is West Virginia and Kentucky (and Oregon) where she assumes that appeals to white working class voters are especially appropriate. The problem is that the people she needs to appeal to are the superdelegates, not voters in states with minimal delegate counts. She is trying to make the case for her electability to the superdelegates. But in doing so, she is treading on poisonous water that must make Democratic superdelegates cringe.
She must bow out gracefully before her reputation is permanently damaged. She fought hard and helped energize the Democratic Party like never before. She can continue the campaign if she keeps it on the positive so as not to damage the clear nominee. But if she goes scorched earth, she will only provoke further anger and division in the party – and the country.
UPDATED: MSNBC’s First Read:
It’s comments like that one that might drive more supers toward Obama pretty quickly. Why? Because they know the math, but they don’t want her to spend three weeks making a case that Obama can’t win. It will only weaken him. Here’s what Obama backer Chris Dodd said yesterday, per NBC’s Ken Strickland. “You’re going to be asking a bunch of people [in West Virginia] to vote against somebody who’s likely to be your nominee a few weeks later? And turn around and ask the very same people a few weeks later to reverse themselves and now vote for [Obama] on election day?”
UPDATE II: The comment is generating a lot of comment in the blogosphere. Here’s a cross section:
—Steve Benen:
Let’s put aside the unfortunate wording of Clinton’s statement in which she equated “hard-working” with “white,” and consider the merits of her broader point.
Clinton has done well with white “hard-working” Americans, especially in states like Pennsylvania. But her argument is premised on the notion that White Joe Six Pack who votes in a Democratic primary would rather support a Republican than Obama. Where’s the proof to bolster this claim? There isn’t any.
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?
There’s a pattern all right. It ain’t over till the last eyeball has been gouged. The article goes on to note that in signs of “unrest,” Feinstein mulled out loud whether emboldened delegates are less fearful of getting their eyeballs gouged out. More significantly, Democratic eminence geezer/albatross George McGovern bailed on Hillary for Obama. If anything, a clear omen she is the nominee. Russert’s declaration notwithstanding. Doddering old fool gets to keep his eyes. Russert will be dealt with later.
Please tell me she was misquoted here; I really never thought that the worst arguments of her hack defenders would start coming from the candidate herself. I may have to retract what I said earlier — if she cares at all about her reputation it may be wise for Clinton to drop out before she says more stuff like this.
Apparently not satisfied with her plummeting approval ratings among black voters, Hillary Clinton decided to remind us again that our votes don’t actually count….Hard-working Americans = white Americans. Right. The rest of us sit on our porches eating watermelon and plucking banjos.
—The American Street (in a post that MUSTo be read in full) takes an analytical look at the candidates’ voting demographics. Here is a small excerpt from its conclusions:
I suspect there’ll be some outrage at Hillary’s latest words
But they only make me wonder what she can be possibly thinking. And it’s really kinda sad to see.…Of course, when virtually every metric works against an ongoing Clinton candidacy, it’s understandable that she has to reach to niche metrics to make any case at all. But she does so at great risk, especially to her own aspirations should she ever reach above the Senate again. She may not be a racist, but there’s already been harm to the reputation she and her husband once enjoyed within the Black American demographic.That and the hostility that’s occurred between the ardent supporters of these two candidates may do more damage to her than to the Democratic party.
Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won’t feign shock. But it’s a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate’s mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voter.
And it’s also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there’s a substantial number of black voters.
Last night in another thread, I commented again about how poorly Hillary Clinton has been served by her hired campaign guns. Of course, the senator has stuck her foot in her mouth on her own as well, but nothing compares to this. From a new USA Today interview, she manages to top any dog-whistle race-baiting that her husband put out on the campaign trail with this naked appeal.
…You see the problem and beauty of Senator Clinton’s statement is that it boldly embraces the undiscussed fear in this Reagan Democrat demographic, the people who do consider race a major factor — concern that white privilege is being threatened, that somehow Barack Obama as president would exact retribution against “hard working white Americans” for past or present institutionalized racism.
Does she hear herself? “Working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.” “Whites in both states.” If a Republican said this about a black opponent, his career would be in jeopardy for racism.