[UPDATE]Was Hillary's 'White" Comment really that bad?

Alright I usually miss these things, I honestly thought that the whole Wright thing would never last more then 2 days, well I was wrong about that.

so yesterday when I heard the white comment, well 1) I didn't think it was true, Democrats never win the white working class vote, its the minority vote, latinos, Blacks, etc, the minority vote is what gets democrats to the white house and many many seats around the country. and as the gallup poll yesterday said, Obama isn't really that far behind then Kerry was among the white votes, so it seems more to me that DEMOCRATS have a white problem, not Obama, but whatever

but here it is 24 hrs later and whats on Morning Joe? the White comment, and what was everywhere yesterday the White comment, sure it was a bit tasteless, the question was What was Hillary's Path to the Nomination? and she basically says I got white people.

it was a dumb way to answer the question, but really was it that bad? Dan Abrams said last night had this happened a month ago this REALLY would have exploded, but only the fact that basically Hillary is done is really keeping this exploding in her face,

so I was wrong about Wright, I was wrong about Tulza (thought it would be more of a big deal) I was wrong about 'Bitter' so I am starting to think I am wrong about the "white" comment and this is not going to go away so then I have to ask was it really that bad? and if so why?

and HRC supporters obviously you are going to say no, so how about instead you can just tell us what she really meant, and why she choose that way to answer the question about what her path to the nomination was.

Update [2008-5-9 9:0:3 by TruthMatters]:

Obama has gotten 3 supers today so far including 1 who switched from Hillary to Obama, Hillary picked up 1,

giving us a total net of Obama - 3, Hillary - 0

are the supers moving faster after the White comment to prevent anymore damage? http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/



Display:


Re: Was Hillary's 'White" (none / 0)

I absolutely think it's wrong. Sorry.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:02:48 AM EST

Re: Was Hillary's 'White" (none / 0)

but the question is WHY?

we know she gets the white vote, she is winning it by 20%-30% its true, obama gets the black vote, 90%

we all know its true, we all talk about it, now I can see it being wrong because its not true, no democrat ever wins white votes, not even Bill, it was the AA vote that got him elected and THIS is why the party doesn't want to piss em off, they are needed BECAUSE democrats can't win the white vote.

so I think its not true, but anyways why was it wrong for her to say what everyone else says?

I mean I kinda understand it if Obama ever said I will be the nominee because Obama has a problem winning black voters, and no one can win the white house with out them.

I guess is this one of those things EVERYONE but the candidates are allowed to say?


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:07:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Hillary's 'White" (none / 0)

Because, here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry.

As you point out, this is ridiculous. And Obama won Maine, Iowa, Kansas, Utah, Minnesota, North Dakota, etc, and we've got months and months until the general election, so it's not like he can't improve on those numbers. But Hillary is trying to find a reason for the superdelegates to support her over Obama, and she's doing so in a manner that, if she continues to do so, will destroy our party.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:13:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Hillary's Comment really that bad? (none / 0)

It's no different from what the media themselves have been saying for months. It's no worse than any of the other obvious things a Clinton has said in the past six months that were immediately interpreted as a sign of unrepentant racism.


by Jim J on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:30:04 AM EST

Re: Was Hillary's Comment really that bad? (none / 0)

No more so than Obama's "typical white person" comment.
The media has made this contest more divisive by using identity politics at every turn, yet the candidates can't comment on this at all, even when commenting on a media article??
I actually heard someone this morning (on Morning Joe, maybe?) say that it was ok for the newspeople to say this, but not for Hillary Clinton to say it. Huh??? Is Obama allowed to say he is getting 90%+ of the black vote, or is that not allowed, either?
by AnnC on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:39:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Hillary's Comment really that bad? (none / 0)

While I don't completely agree with that comparison to Barack's "typical white person" comment, I think that is a valid and important point to bring up.  

You're absolutely right that the media has made this contest more divisive by using identity politics at every turn--it has made me uncomfortable that just about the first demographic they've given out of every state's exit poll is the race, white vs. black.  Hell, even before the exit polls they were talking about the high percentage of African Americans in NC and what that would translate to votewise if his percentage among the African Americans held up.  And every state they disect prior to voting is broken out on the magic maps by where the African American populations are.

And I also agree with your restatement of what was said on Morning Joe--apparently every single newsperson is able to disect our country by race and by income and by college-educated vs. not.  But once anybody outside the talking heads provides any analysis or even simply restates the obvious that every news station has said, it's being called racist (and I have to agree that this isn't true).  And that's all Hillary's statement was essentially doing--she is winning the "working class," but that's only because there's a higher percentage of whites in the "working class" voting Democrats as opposed to African Americans, so the white comment was simply breaking that working class down further as it relates to the votes.

Now, Barack's comments on the other hand were most definitely directed at characterizations and stereotypes that have nothing to do with the voting that is relevant to this election process.  I guess I'm the same type of typical white person as his grandma--except that if I'm walking down NYC streets by myself late at night, I'm holding my purse tighter whether I'm coming across a black person or a white person (then again, one of my best friends growing up was African American, so I never had that instilled fear that I guess he believes so many of us "typical white people" do).  

I'm as politically correct as anybody, and yet the very nature of this race and the way it's being reported, which is I guess necessary with respect to voting since there have been such clear lines drawn as to where support is coming from for each candidate, almost results in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't atmosphere.  Likewise, I have to agree that Geraldine Ferraro's take was spot on--if you have one candidate getting 90% of a demographic group making up 20%+(?) of the voting population, that's certainly an advantage.  And while I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that the majority of African Americans voting for Barack have done just as much homework as the majority of women who are voting for Hillary Clinton--there is no doubt a portion of each population is voting the way they are simply because the candidate is either an African American or a woman.  And therefore, I think it's absolutely true that Barack Obama would not be in the position he is if we was not African American--because anybody who looks at it honestly realizes that while the Democrats may carry 90% of African American votes in a general election, it is NOT representative of past elections that one Democratic candidate receives 90% of the African American vote in our primaries.  And it does bother me that simply acknowledging what is the honest truth about this election is now suddenly racist--since when did honest simple truth become racist?        

 


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:35:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Hillary's Comment really that bad? (2.00 / 1)

Clinton was engaging in some carefully crafted language that her camp determined could best be employed to play on some fears (among SDs?) that Obama is not running strong enough among white Democratic voters. I think she was obviously uncomfortable doing so, and in the process stepped all over her talking points.

In the end, she seemed to equate "hard working" with "white Americans," which is a disturbingly racist notion. Do I think she meant it to come out that way? No. But, it did. The fact that she was so blatantly attempting to play on racial fears or uncertainties while doing it doesn't score her any benefit of the doubt with me.


by Clancy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:45:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Hillary's Comment really that bad? (none / 0)

I thought that too - it was the conflation of white with hard working that leapt out at me, and the unsaid obverse that Obama's voters are lazy AAs.   I have no idea how deliberate it was, but I'm not inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt as she has said similar things many times.


by interestedbystander on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You know , you're right Clancy - (none / 0)

you made me think about it.  She was uncomfortable - a good insight.  She is tired, as is he.  And really if we are to have a good conversation about race - we can't be so damn pc about it.  But the "hard working"  - I bet she was sorry she said it the moment it came out of her mouth.

Peggy Noonan said it was "vulgar" -- ewww - vulgar.  from the Latin vulgaris - the common people.  Isn't the Democratic Party about the common people - or is a WSJ columnist adverse to the common people?


by Xanthe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:21:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I said the same thing but I was wrong. (none / 0)

When I first saw that comment, it was on some blog, and it seemed like she said it at a speech the way they portrayed it.

Later hearing the tape played, that wasn't her spouting some pre planned talking point.  She was making the point that he wasn't winning "hard working Americans" then realized that was racist, because he was winning hard working black votes. So she qualified it with "White Americans".  When she said white Americans she meant it to difuse race from the comment, not apply it.

I am an Obama supporter, and very anti-Clinton.  But I was wrong here, and I think anyone who think this was a racist comment is wrong.

The irony is just after hearing the clip and comming to the conclusion I was wrong they go to a clip of her at a rally.  Where she says and this is paraphrased because I cannot remember the quote exactly "It is hard for women to be the best at anything....which is why we need to put a woman into the White House."  Which I found offensive, and I think I see why she cannot win younger female voters.  I really believe she is a misogynist,  she doesn't like women, she just finds them useful.


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Hillary's (2.00 / 1)

The problem is that when people talk about it trying to damage Hillary the more Obama becomes the "black candidate." It also makes Obama out to be some kind of totalitarian language freak. There's going to be a revolt in the polls in Nov. against Obama simply because of this stuff.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:30:10 AM EST

Obama will suffer, b/c she said something... (none / 0)

Please explain that to me.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:27:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama will suffer, b/c she said something... (none / 0)

especially when obama declined to comment, or at least i think he did.


by jbill on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:37:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He did decline to comment n/t (none / 0)


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:03:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

he is savvier than Hillary (none / 0)

and he knows that he can't make a big issue of race.  That's why Obama supporters (I am one) should drop this issue.  Even though Hillary said something dumb, jumping on it makes us look like the PC police and further racializes the situation.  Further racialization is bad for Obama's November chances, and also goes against one of the primary themes of his campaign.


by JJE on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:28:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm with you there... (none / 0)

that's why I pointed out that he did not comment on Hillary's statement.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:18:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he is savvier than Hillary (none / 0)

The media is doing it for him. He's already become "the black candidate".


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:58:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It was a dumb comment (none / 0)

but nothing to get worked up about IMO.

I don't think anyone is going to accuse her of being racist. There are a lot of poor qualities I ascribe to her, but bigoted is not one of them.


by Mojo Risen on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:38:43 AM EST

Re: It was a dumb comment (none / 0)

Um...  Sorry, but you are terribly mistaken.  I thought the comment was idiotic and I wish Hillary would stop making herself and our party look just as bad as the reptilians.  Stuff like that is supposed to come out of Karl Rove's mouth or George Allen, not a Clinton.

And if you think people won't remember this, you are crazy.  They still remember when Bill said Baracks victory in S.C. was inconsequential and compared it to Jesse Jackson.

I understand Hillary wants to win but someone needs to sit her down and explain to her that if she continues on this course, her reputation will be permanently tarnished and her future in the party will be in question.


Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.
by Dirk Diggler on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:39:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Hillary's 'White" (none / 0)

"White working class" is a term used often in the media.

She used it, and some Obama supporters went nuts.


by Michael Begala on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:40:16 AM EST

Except that's not what she... (none / 0)

... said.

What she actually said was the problem.


by kraant on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:54:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Hillary's 'White" (none / 0)

No, she said, "Hard-working, white Americans." That's different than "white working class."


by elrod on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Was Hillary's 'White" (none / 0)

how is it different?

either way we are talking about working whites


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:01:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh... (none / 0)

What she actually said was:

"working, hard-working Americans, white Americans"


by kraant on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:02:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is why they are mad (none / 0)

it implies that that hard working americans are white.  I think she simply misspoke and meant working class whites, which is what everyone has been talking about anyhoo.  I don't believe in any way, shape, or form that she intended to imply what people are getting out of the statement.

That said, I had to have the proof of the quote in context because I was surprised that it came out of her mouth.

Does it have legs, I don't know...it wouldn't in my world, but I am like the diarist...I never thought the other stuff would have legs.


accepting McLettuce is like being 9 years old and forced to eat your own cooking
by Sychotic1 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is why they are mad (none / 0)

The news report:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el ection2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N .htm

"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."

The audio:

There you go, she said it.

She said it...


by kraant on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:51:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Misread "had" as "have"... (none / 0)

... thought it was a request for context...

Nevermind.


by kraant on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:34:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look at the facts (none / 0)

While I do not agree 100% with Hillary's comment, we need to look at the facts. Obama spent 11.1 million dollars in Pennslyvania. Obama spent weeks doing a bus tour in Pennslyvania meeting with blue collar voters and talking with them face to face. They STILL rejected him and voted for Hillary. Why? Was it race? I do not know. McCain is currently campaigning for these blue collar white voters in PA and OH. His goal is to get 20% of Clinton supporters. If he succeeds then PA and OH will be competitive and has a good chance of turning red in November. If he manages to get even 25% then PA and OH will be a McCain double digit victory in both states. Obama can not win the presidency without one of those states. Now lets look at W. Virginia. Obama is the current front runner and likely nominee. Then why is Clinton ahead by over 35 points? Shouldn't Obama as the likely nominee be ahead by over 35 points? Again, I am not sure why? But we need to start looking at the problem and start looking for solutions. If you believe we do not need the white blue collar vote then you can write off PA and OH in November. Lets just give McCain victory in both of those states and find more states to make up for those Electoral votes.


by maddie900 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:44:59 AM EST

It's West Virginia (2.00 / 2)

Because it's West Virginia. It's Appalachia, and for whatever reason Appalachian voters have rejected Barack Obama. I live in Appalachia myself and can ascribe this hostility to a few things:

1) Appalachian voters hate reform candidates. They've been hoodwinked by outsiders promising to "improve" things for over a hundred years. They are deeply skeptical of reform politicians.

2) Education levels for white voters are the lowest in the country. Obama's soaring rhetoric has not resonated with uneducated whites up to now.

3) Racism. In many ways, Appalachian whites approach race the way white Southerners do: there is a HUGE burden for blacks to cross here. The ASSUMPTION is that all blacks are like Jesse Jackson (or worse).

4) Clinton's Bubba factor: Bill Clinton has been putting on his rural Bubba face for months now and it's worked. Lots of West Virginians respond well to Bill Clinton.

5) Coal. Obama told people in Beckley the truth about coal and its environmental effect. Just like when he told Detroit to raise MPG standards, people in Beckley were not amused. While mountain top removal angers many in WV, the powerful in the state have convinced many voters that without it, the state would lose what little jobs it has. Hillary, of course, has done nothing to criticize the coal companies.

6) Age. Young people in Appalachia leave. It's been that way for decades now, as opportunities for young adults have dwindled.

All of these together make WV impossible for Obama. The best he can hope for is that Clinton supporters just give up and stay home and Obama comes close by default.


by elrod on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:05:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes it was that bad, and she should back off this (2.00 / 2)

Hillary's comment was a hair's breadth away from saying superdelegates should not vote for Obama because he's black and consequently can't get elected. That's bad. That's VERY bad. That's not the purported values of the Democratic Party. We are supposed to be the colorblind party, and this argument has no place.

I don't believe Hillary is racist, but this was a racist comment and the tactic of saying Obama can't get elected because of race is racist. It is a desperation move encouraged by someone in her campaign who believes they can step right up to the line of saying Obama's color should disqualify him without actually saying it. They got as close to that yesterday as they'd better get, and she should be strong enough to resist such stupid advice within her campaign.


John McCain supports privatizing Social Security.
by Travis Stark on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:46:34 AM EST

Re: Yes it was that bad, and she should back off t (none / 0)

What he said.


by interestedbystander on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:02:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bad Comment (none / 0)

A very bad comment coming from a seasoned politician.  Hillary would have jumped all over anyone saying this 6 months ago.  Ambition trumps common sense.


by temptxan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:11:31 AM EST

Re: Bad Comment (none / 0)

She would have jumped all over Obama saying he has the votes of hard working, hard working American men.


by interestedbystander on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:03:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, It Wasn't (none / 0)

And, in fact, she was referring to an AP article that made the claim. But, hey, Obamabots and media minions will never miss a chance to smear her, so it's to be completely expected that they would take this opportunity to do so once again.

She could have said "white, working class voters," which is what she meant; she didn't, and it was a quite minor misstatement in describing what the AP article was reporting.

But, of course, it has to be manufactured into all this faux outrage and condemnation by the liars in the media and blogosphere and the Obamabots who love them so because they are Obama's biggest cheerleaders.

Hillary is a racist! Oh, the shame! She said "white!" She claimed she has the "white" vote! Oh, My God!

Does ANYONE remember when Michelle Obama said that "black voters would wake up and support Barack?"

Conveniently forgotten. Poof. Down the memory hole.

If the tide turns, and these same media liars spin for McCain, the howls of outrage from Obamabots will be heard all the way to Beijing and back.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM EST

Re: No, It Wasn't (none / 0)

once you used the term Obamabot you lost all credibility with me, if I don't insult you by using terms like clintonista, I expect you to at least ACT like an adult and show respect.

Thank you


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Was it that bad? (none / 0)

in the context on how she has been running this campaign, yes it is.


by IowaMike on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:55 AM EST

The Regime of Race Has Begun (none / 0)

Any critique of Obama will be defined as racist. This tyranny will make 1776 look like a tea party.


by superetendar on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:29:05 AM EST

Poor Whites Vote Republican a Myth (none / 0)

I may write a diary on this topic in the future. The fact is poor people vote Democratic. It's a myth that poor people vote Republican because poor states such as Kansas vote Republican and rich states such as California vote Democratic.

The problem with the analysis is that aggregate data is not the same as micro data. When you disaggregate the data, statistical analysis concludes that poor people vote Democratic. In a study, regression analysis showed that in every county tested, the poorest people in the county voted Democratic, and the richest people in the county voted Republican. Poor whites vote Democratic. States are poor because they vote for Republican policies.

As far as categorizing people into voting demographics, I don't see anything wrong with it as long as people realize that conclusions based on demographics are statistical and not over generalizations. I know that young people are often offended that people distinquish people into categories of ethnic group and race. On the other hand, to recognize and remedy discrimination, you have to be able to categorize. It's an irony, but the US Supreme Court has struck down remedies to racial discrimination precisely because fighting discrimination means that you must have the ability to categorize.


Dizzy Zzyzzy
by Zzyzzy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:33:47 AM EST

Hillary's comment made a big difference to me (none / 0)


My thoughts on McCain: I have no desire to let that idiot fulfill his desire to "Bomb Iran"
by Otaku Saru on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:36:24 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.