Hillary’s Bittergate (UPDATED)
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.
27 Responses to “Hillary’s Bittergate (UPDATED)”
Excellent analysis Elrod. Just one thing. Hillary Clinton herself is white, and can say whatever she damn well pleases about her fellow brothers and sisters in whiteness. Obama has no such luck.
[...] The Moderate Voice – Domestic and international news analysis, irreverent comments, original reporti… wrote an interesting post today on Hillaryâ??s BittergateHere’s a quick excerptHillary’s Bittergate May 7th, 2008 by ELROD 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 [...]
It's not the “hard working” part comment that bothers me. I'm sure she feels black working class people work hard to. What bothers me is she's presumably making an argument as to why the super-delegates should over-ride the pledged delegate count and the popular vote and select her as the nominee. And no matter how I slice it, she seems to be saying that white peoples' votes ought to count more than black peoples' votes. They should select her, because white-working class voters are a key demographic the Democratic party needs. Evidently, black-working class voters are not so essential (otherwise her argument falls apart). So the super-delegates have to intervene, because the votes of black voters shouldn't count as much as the votes of white voters.
Anyway, my conclusion is the same as yours.
Well, Hillary can't very well say that she appeals to hard working black voters because she doesn't.
We all know that Hillary's campaign is sinking and she will work every possible angle to stay in the race. I believe her comments were meant to point out the fact that she can carry this important demographic. That demographic is hard working, white working class voters. I don't know how else to describe them. Perhaps she could have said, “Americans of European ancestry, many of whom do not have a college education, who toil to put food on their family's table.”
Nah…. That sounds elitist….
I don't think she is saying that white people's votes should count more than black people's votes… the one demographic she can win is probably larger than the black vote… it's a political reality and one doesn't win elections by trying to appeal to 35% of the voters. One wins elections by appealing to 50% plus 1.
There was an excellent post on here yesterday about how Hillary lost because she didn't appeal to the black vote. That's her real problem. She's left with support from a less than 50% demographic while alienating other blocks of voters (such as blacks) that she needs to win. In other words, while I don't think she was being racist with the comment this post is about, her comment shows where her priorities are (and it will cost her the nomination). Furthermore I can definitely see how many folks can believe it is a racist comment. So I tend to agree with elrod and RickTaylor (as to how some people might interpret her comments), but with my added layer.
I believe her real message is that she can carry all traditional Democratic demographics if Obama was out of the race, but Obama can not carry all these traditional Democratic demographics.
Bottom line is that she's grasping at straws to stay afloat and the straws in her hands are too small to carry her. She needs a nice big log to carry her, which she won't get unless Obama somehow manages to crash and burn.
I think cadence and tone are essential in this analysis Elrod. I'm no Hillary fan, but I'm not ready to condemn this without the audio. I know it sounds like parsing, but there is a difference between making a comment that puts hard working Americans and white Americans together and apart. My point is that she could as well have been ENUMERATING people who support her;
1. Hard working Americans
2. White Americans
OR she could have been using white Americans as a descriptor for hard working Americans, which is of course unacceptable. It's a fine line, and the only way you could posibly distinguish it would be by going to the audio, which is what I think needs to be done in this case.
Very interesting post!
It comes on the heels of a PBS discussion concerning race in these primariies. The point was made (and I agree) that news coverage both legitimately reports about and simultaneously increases the race component in politics, often in subtle ways.
Blue collar workers have become too closely identified as WHITE blue collar workers; it's almost a code.. The 'black vote' implies that all blacks vote
the same way. The impresion is left that the lunch box crowd, soccer moms, college kids, college grads and so forth are all mutually exclusive groups.. That leaves the 'black vote' as a separate group of its own, with no distintinguishing features, or the worst imaginings of the consumer
Elrod expressed the possible explanations for Hillary's use of language this way very astutely.
>Thank you for being cautious about jumping to conclusions, Elrod. <
A third possiblity occured to me: that she sincerely believes that the issue of race will be the straw that breaks the back of Dem chances in Nov., and that's why she's clinging on.
Especially after the Wright flap, I do hink race will be a major worry in Nov.
Whatever the case, I believe Hillary has made the wrong decision on this one. I believe that whatever votes she gains this way, will cost her more votes in other ways.
More importantly, she keeps feeding McCain talking points!
How can she appear to be united with Obama in Nov after this?
It's not good for her. It's not good for the Dems. It's just not good.
.
.
Lynx, I don't think disentangling “hard working” from her statement makes much sense. What kind of polling has been done showing that Clinton appeals to the hard-working and Obama appeals to the lazy?
I think it could have just been a verbal tic left over from her populist posturing over the past couple of weeks, and I don't think she's racist, but I do find the fact that she's brought up some racially-related stats of debatable relevance to the general in such a clumsy way to be very worrisome. I want her to keep campaigning to the end of the primaries, but not like this.
I think the underlying point she is trying to make is that the Democratic nominee (even if it is her) will capture the vast majority of the black vote no matter what (because that is what the last 30+ years tell her).
So, in her mind, the best candidate is the one that can get the other types of votes out there. There is a logic in the argument, but it ignores the Hillery factor, i.e., the number of people who for various reasons will never vote for her, personally, in the general election.
And I think she is ignoring how much the overall black vote would self-suppress (as compared to voting Republican) as a reaction to her getting the nomination over Obama.
In the end, IMO, Obama will not be a shoo-in in the general election, but I cannot see how after how the way the Democratic primaries have played out, Clinton could possibly win the general election anymore.
runasin, the problem I have with your objection is that though I agree that language can create assumptions (it's true about how blacks are assumed only to be black, not young, old, college student or blue collar) the fact is that they are treated as a bloc because they are voting as a bloc. North Carolina blacks went OVER 90% for Obama. Sure you could ignore race distinctions and separate them by class, or income, or education in a color-blind fashion, but you'd be hiding a very relevant number. Blacks are many things other than black, like any other race, but no other race is voting so unanimously for one single candidate.
You are mistakenly assuming that the statement has to be true to make sense. Obama often says that his supporters want a new direction for America, I could as easily ask if he's saying that Clinton's supporters want the same thing we've been fed for the past 8 years.
It doesn't even need to be read as an insult to the other side. “My supporters are good people, hard working people” doesn't mean that my opponents people are awful and lazy people.
If you look at the exit polls, it's clear that Obama doesn't have a problem winning “white” voters, as he trounces her in the under 30 set and gets very close in the 30-45 group, while losing by quite a bit in the 45-60 and getting demolished in the 60+. He has an older white problem.
I have a suspicion that the older groups tend to vote the most straight ticket as well (does any one know if this is true) and being weak in that group would actually hurt him less than Hillary being weak in the under 45 group.
That still doesn't make sense, Lynx. Clinton's entire statement is about white, working class voters. I don't see why she would suddenly digress and start talking about all kinds of hard working Americans in the middle of her talk about the white working class.
If we are taking her words literally — and I can still see this as a tic or a genuine case of misspeaking, so I doubt that this was her intent — she's assigning a desirable characteristic to this bloc of voters, while Obama has never sliced and diced his supporters demographically and then praised one subset, implicitly criticizing all those outside that group. And neither has Clinton, up until now.
It's a gaffe. She has started talking about race and class very clumsily, and it's not a good idea.
I see what you're saying, Lynx, but she's only carrying the hard working whites. Perhaps the Latinos as well (Have you noticed they stopped parsing out that group as much? I know that the SW states have voted, but other states have Latinos). Who else could she mean?
Lynx,
Re: “runasin, the problem I have with your objection …”
I wasn't objecting.so much as observing when I spoke about language in a general sense. Sometimes racial categories can't be ignored; sometimes it would be msileading to ignore them. I was pointing out the need for caution.
————————————
Even speaking in terms of the white vote vs the black vote can be divisive, because it brings up the mental image of two separeate groups, one white and the other black.
So, the amount of time and emphasis spent reporting on these separate voting blocs has an impact.
I'm saying: don't avoid it, but be careful
When it comes to Hillary, I don't know for sure, what her intention was. As a politician dealing with all these voting demographics, I would expect her to, at least, be more careful in how she uses language. It's not like she's unaware of her black/white audience and how people react.
This is really a topic the media should address.
The PBS discussion was thoughtful, nunaced and iintelligent. No one claimed there was a simple answer.
I saw part of a disucssion at FOX, which was disgusting. They thought it was a joke. (I didn't see it in its entirety, though, so I may be off here.)
I personally feel after hearing it that
a) white was a qualifier on hard working, and Lynx was right about that
b) she was very uncomfortable saying it, signifying that it is a crafted ploy that she was just throwing out there to see what would happen.
Hmm, second thought: Perhaps she was trying to find a non-elitist way to say less educated. I'd buy that.
The interesting thing is that this time last year, it looked as if Obama would have trouble with the African American vote, because the group was so loyal to the Clintons. In 1992, Bill lost the White vote across every demographic and it was the African American vote that put him over. The Lewinsky scandal (sorry to bring it up) never effected his support among African Americans in polls. And then he moved to Harlem… In short, we loved them as much as you could love any politician.
I think that the near unanimous voting is a form of censure. Gaffes that might might have been shrugged off as “eh, what do you expect” from another candidate are really hurting the Clintons because there is a perception that they should know better. To hear Bill or Hillary say completely clueless things, whether by mistake or on purpose, comes across as if the special relationship the Clintons seemed to have with the African American community was always a sham. As if they never really “got it.”
So please, no one complained about the monolithic nature of the African American voting block when we turned out in greater number than we ever had before for Gore and Kerry (I believe Nader got less than one percent of the black vote in 2000). I understand that we're very excited to get back the people who voted for Bush twice, but I believe even (or especially) the Clintons would have some respect for loyalty.
runasin, just to be clear, I agree that one has to be cautious when slicing people by race, since it does serve to reinforce racial divisions. However I think that the influence of race in these primaries cannot be denied, especially when one race is voting almost unanimously for the candidate of their same race. Another thought; people seem VERY uncomfortable talking about how disproportionally white people vote for Clinton, and what the origin of THAT could be, one of a long list of double standards in the US's twisted race issue.
Mikkel, thanks for the audio. Listening to it, it sounds like Clinton wanted to say “white, blue collar worker” but botched it badly. It doesn't sound like she's saying “hard working Americans” and then “white Americans” as a separate entity, but that the two are tied. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like she's trying to play race to me either, just name the demographic. She's certainly talking race, basically implying that Obama can't carry the whites, but I don't see the race card in the “hardworking” line, personally.
Moreover, according to a March 27 Gallup Poll, “those least likely to bolt the party and vote for McCain are blacks, liberal Democrats, and core Democrats.” So it is arguable that an HRC supporter who would vote for McCain against nearly everything that HRC stands for, particularly at a time in our nation's history like this, is voting with their race far more doggedly than, say, a Black voter who would sooner vote for bright yellow towel than McCain.
Also, if Black people just vote on race, where was Alan Keyes' huge wave of support?
Fool, obama is also WHITE you dumb freak. like a typical brainless freak, a biracial person is a member of two races.
:a biracial person is a member of two races.”
Yeah, but he's going to be grouped with only one race. Guess which one.
Lynx,
You're saying what I said from the beginning.
I can't find where the beef is.
Are we arguing about how much we agree? (hahaha)
[...] again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.??? ???There??http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/newsweek-blogitics/19447/hillarys-bittergate/Today on the presidential campaign trail Boston GlobeIN THE HEADLINES Evidence scant that Wright did [...]
[...] Jesse Helms/George Wallace-type comments about “hard-working” white people, she’s playing to racial and class stereotypes again. At the Moderate Voice, blogger Elrod points out: Well, if the USA Today interview with [...]
Exactly. Here's a hint: if/when elected, he's not going to be called “the first biracial president.”
It's ironic by just even posting on this, Joe reveals HE needs to get a life by even wasting precious minutes of his life on this topic. On the other hand, mw is out here doing his usual Republican apologist act. As mw effortlessly points out, a small slight against a deceased former President = the competence, intelligence.
Press Digital
Profile:- http://www.pressdigital.com.au
I think that the near unanimous voting is a form of censure. Gaffes that might might have been shrugged off as “eh, what do you expect” from another candidate are really hurting the Clintons because there is a perception that they should know better.
I think US needed Obama to give a different signal and hope a symbol of change to the world after Bush's adament policies. Appointing Hillary as foreign sec. is a good step, Clinton himslef had relations with leaders and respective countries so may be Hillary can take his help to take some effective decisions.
Moreover, according to a March 27 Gallup Poll, “those least likely to bolt the party and vote for McCain are blacks, liberal Democrats, and core Democrats.” So it is arguable that an HRC supporter who would vote for McCain against nearly everything that HRC stands for, particularly at a time in our nation's history like this, is voting with their race far more doggedly than, say, a Black voter who would sooner vote for bright yellow towel than McCain.
Also, if Black people just vote on race, where was Alan Keyes' huge wave of support?