Defending HRC

I think the waves of outrage washing throughout the Obamasphere over this remark from Hillary Clinton reflect an echo chamber mentality more than anyone else. Here's what Clinton's quoted as saying:

"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."

As quoted, that's a dumb thing to say which seems to imply that non-white voters or perhaps all Obama supporters are lazy. But add a pinch of charitable interpretation into the dynamic, and I think Clinton's meaning is perfectly clear -- she really does do better than Obama among white working class voters in Democratic primary elections. I don't buy the argument, often made by Clinton supporters, that this edge among white working class Democratic primary voters indicates a substantial Clinton electability edge in the general election (it's one part fallacy, two parts baseless speculation, and then a grain of truth) but it's a common argument and not an offensive one.

Meanwhile, just from a tactical posture the closer this thing gets to being over the less point there is in Obama supporters getting super snarky and indignant about everything the Clinton campaign does. At this point, Obama's job is to start making people who find this sort of argument plausible like him more, not to crush Hillary Clinton.

Comments

I think the question is whether it is wise to be increasing the salience of race at this point. One of Obama's biggest challenges will be winning over white swing voters, and emphasizing racial polarization seems like a bad way to achieve that goal.

Posted by minderbender | May 8, 2008 11:43 AM

how can you make a black man likable to people who are actually susceptible to racist arguments?

i just can't believe that there are people dumb enough to accept her comments at face value still in the Democratic party.

Posted by BA | May 8, 2008 11:44 AM

The point isn't that she's calling non-whites lazy--I didn't read it that way at all--but that she's suggesting white votes should carry more weight than black votes in choosing the nominee. That is a blatantly racist claim, no matter the ostensible rationale behind it.

Posted by Brendan | May 8, 2008 11:47 AM

I think you're right on this Matthew, and I say that as one of the most extreme Hillary haters on the site.

But it is an awfully fine line, and one that a lot of Hillary supporters, and some surrogates, have crossed. And, given perfectly understandable sensitivities, it isn't unreasonable to suggest that Hillary should be a little more careful how she phrases this particular argument. In this case the "hard-working Americans, white Americans," phraseology contains an ... unfortunate implication. One which even I feel was probably unintended, but still.

Actually, thinking about it more, was she speaking extemporaneously or was it scripted? If the latter, I'd be much less inclined to be charitable about her intentions.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 11:49 AM

You should take a listen to this discussion on race and media from last nights NewsHour

http://www-tc.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2008/05/07/20080507_race28.mp3

particularly author Keith Woods observations.

Posted by Judson | May 8, 2008 11:50 AM

I highly doubt she meant to say that only white Americans were hard-working. "Hard-working" is totally common political jargon for 'working-class'. Almost certainly she meant to say "hard-working white Americans" but just stumbled over the words a bit, adding an extra "Americans" into her sentence. Take out the first "Americans" and get exactly what she doubtless meant to say.

Posted by Ryan | May 8, 2008 11:50 AM

Even with a charitable interpretation, it's still a foolish thing for Clinton to say out loud. All it does is stir up the race issue again among Democrats. Of course, as Ben Smith notes, it's probably no coincidence that Hillary made this statement after North Carolina and right before West Virginia and Kentucky...

Posted by DaveWoo | May 8, 2008 11:52 AM

That's right, there's no reason to interpret this as a racially divisive dogwhistle just because ... West Virginia and Kentucky ... are coming up next.

Posted by J Vogel | May 8, 2008 11:52 AM

Ben Smith has it right on this subject: it is no coincidence that Hillary personally voiced these observations immediately AFTER the last primary state with a large percentage of African-American voters.

Posted by Buffaloed | May 8, 2008 11:52 AM

Ben Smith has it right on this subject: it is no coincidence that Hillary personally voiced these observations immediately AFTER the last primary state with a large percentage of African-American voters.

Posted by Buffaloed | May 8, 2008 11:54 AM

While Matt is right this is still the same ham fisted divisiveness that has come to exemplify her campaign. Whatever else it was it was a damn stupid thing to say at this juncture and comes across as sounding like she is determined to rip the party in half rather than lose to Obama.

Maybe that's not what she meant but still.

Posted by AhYup | May 8, 2008 11:54 AM

Hillary must be crushed. She is evil. She will stop at nothing to destroy Obama, because she and her little demonic lackeys have come to hate Obama more than they ever hated Republicans.

Posted by woohoo | May 8, 2008 11:54 AM

The question isn't why white working-class voters aren't voting for Obama; rather, the question is, why ARE they voting for Hillary? If it's based on economic issues, one would think they will realize that McCain is just more of the same Bush economic policy, and they will vote for Obama in the general. If, however, they are voting on identity/race, then what? Are we supposed to reward Hillary Clinton with the nomination because working class whites won't vote for the black guy? (And, if that happens, do you really expect African-Americans to reward the candidate who relies on those votes?) Either way, if identity politics trumps, Democrats lose. That's why this constant white/black, working-class/elite theme pushed by the Clinton campaign is so destructive.

Posted by Ready for change | May 8, 2008 11:59 AM

Well, I was a Hillary supporter and I think "Vote for me, I'm white" is a horrible message to move to the forefront of her campaign. Any truth there is to the demographic analysis gets lost in the racial identity politics. She can't win the nomination this way.

It's over now. Please Hillary, shut it down.

Posted by Decided | May 8, 2008 12:00 PM

Even if we give her the charitable interpretation that she "misspoke," can we not at least expect as much media coverage as bittergate?

Posted by paraprof | May 8, 2008 12:01 PM

It's the implicit notion that 'working-class' means 'white' that's the problem. It's not limited to Clinton: pundits sometimes fall into the trap. But it's a nasty little tic.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 8, 2008 12:01 PM

The problem is that Hillary is explicitly (or nearly so) saying "vote for me because white people won't vote for a black man."

That is indistinguishable from saying "vote for me because he is a black man." It is flat out racist -- as the 92% of the African-American community voting against has realized. There is a reason why George Bush gets more black votes than she does. As is the case with many 60+ white women who were raised in the lilly white suburbs and/or spent the majority of their adult lives in Arkansas, she is an unreconciled racist. She should be run from the party in disgrace.

I live in Denver. I am seriously considering showing up at one of the appearances of the Queen of Appalachia at the convention wearing sheets and a hood to ask her why she's out of uniform.

Posted by Joe | May 8, 2008 12:01 PM

As a college graduate, I am offended by the insinuation that only people that don't graduate from college work hard.

Not that I actually work that hard myself, but I am sure that many other college graduates do, and I'm offended on their behalf.

Posted by peep | May 8, 2008 12:02 PM

matt,

brendan said:

"The point isn't that she's calling non-whites lazy--I didn't read it that way at all--but that she's suggesting white votes should carry more weight than black votes in choosing the nominee. That is a blatantly racist claim, no matter the ostensible rationale behind it."

that seems perfectly clear and easy to understand.
why muddy the waters with an argument that is so far off the point?
your point was one that did not even cross my mind when i first read the quote.

Posted by frankie d | May 8, 2008 12:03 PM

A little off topic, but I was trying to think of a charitable reason for Hillary to stay in the race at this point.

The best I could come up with, which isn't bad, I don't think, is that she knows that future female candidates for major office will be judged against her. And she may feel that she wants to be sure that expedient decisions she makes today don't come back to haunt other women candidates in the future.

So, for example, dropping out, for whatever reason, before the Obama indisputably clinches it might give cover to other women candidates who might be under pressure to drop out in even more ambiguous circumstances.

Sort of like Pres. Washington leaving office after two terms to set a limiting precident for future presidents, Clinton is staying in as long as possible to set an empowering precident for future female candidates.

Just a thought.

Posted by chuck | May 8, 2008 12:03 PM

As to the secondary point, which may be rightly summarized as "it's time for Hillary to stop attacking Obama and let the healing begin," I agree, of course, but did anyone really expect Hillary to do otherwise at this point?

And, in fairness, while poorly phrased, this argument is a least a ... I was going to say colorable argument, that's the term I wanted, but it would have been an unintended pun; let's just say a "common argument and not an offensive one." We aren't talking about the gas tax/Ayers/elitist nonsense, for example, which is the kind of crap that (justifiably) inspires hatred of Hillary.

Posted by LarryM | May 8, 2008 12:03 PM

She was trying to a double-demagogue twist (play identity politics for the Super Delegates, trying to scare them into thinking Obama can't beat McCain) and decided in mid-dive to add a pander-flip finished (Hey, White People! you sure do work hard!) and wound up doing a belly flop.

Once you go all out for the Lowest Common Denominator, it's hard to keep it all going smoothly, especially when your natural atmosphere is Wellesley, Yale Law, The Rose Firm, and Georgetown, not a bar in Queens, a church hall in Indiana, or the back of a flatbd (please) in North Carolina.

Posted by Jim | May 8, 2008 12:04 PM

You don't hear Obama arguing that Hillary can't win the black vote, when the evidence suggests that she will have a harder time winning them over than Obama will the white working class.

Somehow we always find ourselves in a conversation about how important this segment or that segment of white voters is, and we always seem to act surprised.

Posted by dnA | May 8, 2008 12:04 PM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | May 8, 2008 12:04 PM

The thing that working class whites need more than anything is a vigorous debate between McCain and the Democratic nominee - presumably Obama. If Clinton would pivot and target McCain and his insane plans for taxes, foreign policy, and health care, then she could facilitate either Democrat winning in November and do so while winning West Virginia and Kentucky.

Stay in the race and show what a unity ticket could do by kicking McCain's tail using all of the media attention she still gathers. If she takes the next two weeks and makes the campaign about the issues that we agree upon as Democrats, then she could prove to be a party unifier right now.

Posted by Curtis | May 8, 2008 12:05 PM

I took it to mean exactly what the Obamaniacs are complaining about, but really who gives a damn what that woman says anymore? Obama should never mention her again aside from a gracious acceptance speech if she ever concedes.

Posted by aleks | May 8, 2008 12:05 PM

matt,

brendan said:

"The point isn't that she's calling non-whites lazy--I didn't read it that way at all--but that she's suggesting white votes should carry more weight than black votes in choosing the nominee. That is a blatantly racist claim, no matter the ostensible rationale behind it."

that seems perfectly clear and easy to understand.
why muddy the waters with an argument that is so far off the point?
your point was one that did not even cross my mind when i first read the quote.

Posted by frankie d | May 8, 2008 12:06 PM

Shorter Matthew: time to stop calling Hillary supporters racists and get back to normal Democrat practice of calling Republicans racists.

Posted by Al | May 8, 2008 12:07 PM

With all due respect, Matt, it's not over until the superdelegates have actually come through.

Look, the strongest argument Clinton can make to superdelegates is that America is simply not ready to vote for a black man. Of course, she can't make that argument openly, but she has been implying it for months now, and the escalating level of racial rhetoric starting with South Carolina, continuing through Ferraro-gate, and through the media's mysteriously convenient discovery of Jeremiah Wright indicates that the message has at least penetrated the minds of some electability-minded voters.

As her back edges ever more firmly against the wall, it's got to be tempting for her to make this claim more forcefully. After all, we really don't live in a country with a pristine record on race. And we really do live in a country where even many Democrats feel weird about voting for a black dude.

And maybe it's ok for her to hit on this obvious fact as a fierce competitor. But a line still exists. I think saying that you, unlike your opponent, are the candidate of "hard-working Americans, white Americans" should be unacceptable in the Democratic party. And I think it's important for Obama -- or at least his surrogates -- to make the offensiveness of that statement very clear to superdelegates.

Posted by NS | May 8, 2008 12:07 PM

I'm an Obama supporter, I'm white collar, and I'm white. Without intending to disparage blue collar workers (I'm proud to say my own parents' collars were very blue), am I chopped liver? As I understand the current demographics in this country, a majority of Americans and a majority of white Americans are white collar workers these days. We're swing voters too and we voted for Obama.

Posted by Keith | May 8, 2008 12:07 PM

Matt - you are so wrong about this. As an earlier commenter stated,

The problem is that Hillary is explicitly (or nearly so) saying "vote for me because white people won't vote for a black man." That is indistinguishable from saying "vote for me because he is a black man."

This was a loud and clear dog-whistle to the upcoming voters in WV and KY. How can she be excused for this? How is this acceptable from anyone let another another Democrat??

As a loyal Democrat and as an African American I am horrified by her comments. And I hold all party SDs and leaders accountable if they don't stand up to stop this dispicable behavior by Senator Clinton and her campaign.

It makes me angry and breaks my heart.

Posted by trin | May 8, 2008 12:08 PM

I disagree that the "hard working" part is what's so offensive. It's the argument that even though Hillary is not winning the majority of the popular vote or the pledged delegates, that this shouldn't matter because somehow black votes simply do not count. The implication seems to be that black voters are somehow guaranteed to Obama and have no agency in their decision, which is insulting, but still does not explain why somehow their votes will not count in a general election or in the current primary. If Obama has such a narrow coalition, why does he have the lead? The argument should collapse right there. And if the chief criteria for the Democratic primary were going to be who can get the most white people, why didn't we just say that from the beginning and go back to the 1920s way of doing things?

Posted by Dan Panorama | May 8, 2008 12:11 PM

Matt,

I think you're wrong on this one. The key phrase is: "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." Statements like this fall in line with the broader effort to brand Obama's black voter base as lesser than her white working class base. In this case, Clinton says that she has the hard working American voters. Obama, by implied contrasts, has the black, not hard working (lazy), and effete liberal silver spoon vote. I think you have to have your blinders on not to see this implication.

Obviously there's a reasonable argument that white working class voters are particularly important to a Democratic win. But, since Clinton's argument that Obama can't win these votes is fallacious, her argument instead boils down to a simple value judgment that white working class voters are better and more American than black votes and their elite friends. She's trying to create a reality that does not yet exist, where Obama is seen as incapable of reaching out to the "real America." It's a poisonous narrative and it's a racist narrative, which reinforces the idea that the white working class are the real people, and everyone else is an interest group. And if republicans turn this lie into a reality by repeating it over and over again in the fall, Clinton will be to blame for having sewn the seeds.

Posted by Blake Emerson | May 8, 2008 12:14 PM

Matt,

I think you're wrong on this one. The key phrase is: "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." Statements like this fall in line with the broader effort to brand Obama's black voter base as lesser than her white working class base. In this case, Clinton says that she has the hard working American voters. Obama, by implied contrasts, has the black, not hard working (lazy), and effete liberal silver spoon vote. I think you have to have your blinders on not to see this implication.

Obviously there's a reasonable argument that white working class voters are particularly important to a Democratic win. But, since Clinton's argument that Obama can't win these votes is fallacious, her argument instead boils down to a simple value judgment that white working class voters are better and more American than black votes and their elite friends. She's trying to create a reality that does not yet exist, where Obama is seen as incapable of reaching out to the "real America." It's a poisonous narrative and it's a racist narrative, which reinforces the idea that the white working class are the real people, and everyone else is an interest group. And if republicans turn this lie into a reality by repeating it over and over again in the fall, Clinton will be to blame for having sewn the seeds.

Posted by Blake Emerson | May 8, 2008 12:17 PM

Matt,

I think you're wrong on this one. The key phrase is: "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." Statements like this fall in line with the broader effort to brand Obama's black voter base as lesser than her white working class base. In this case, Clinton says that she has the hard working American voters. Obama, by implied contrasts, has the black, not hard working (lazy), and effete liberal silver spoon vote. I think you have to have your blinders on not to see this implication.

Obviously there's a reasonable argument that white working class voters are particularly important to a Democratic win. But, since Clinton's argument that Obama can't win these votes is fallacious, her argument instead boils down to a simple value judgment that white working class voters are better and more American than black votes and their elite friends. She's trying to create a reality that does not yet exist, where Obama is seen as incapable of reaching out to the "real America." It's a poisonous narrative and it's a racist narrative, which reinforces the idea that the white working class are the real people, and everyone else is an interest group. And if republicans turn this lie into a reality by repeating it over and over again in the fall, Clinton will be to blame for having sewn the seeds.

Posted by Blake Emerson | May 8, 2008 12:17 PM

HRC is old enough and experienced enough to know exactly what she's saying. This is a pathetic and desperate attempt to appeal to the George Wallace wing of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Psittakos | May 8, 2008 12:19 PM

She's moving towards very dangerous ground for herself personally and politically and needs to shut this down now.

This will not hurt Obama. Probably helps him in forcing voters to confront some prejudices.

But I don't want to see Hillary prove herself the caricature all the O-bots have been braying about. She fought a tough fair campaign up to this point. However, she didn't get the numbers she needed on Tuesday to keep her momentum going - and momentum was all she had going for her. Time to let it go.

Posted by Decided | May 8, 2008 12:20 PM

"ready to vote for a black man. Of course, she can't make that argument openly,"

I think she actually just did.

Posted by Katherine | May 8, 2008 12:23 PM

Thanks to the Clintons, blue collar jobs were shipped to other countries. We were supposed to all be re-trained as knowledge workers. The pundits continue to claim that if you're not 'blue collar' then you're not a normal American. But they were on board as the JOBS LEFT and telling us to GO GET RETRAINED. Accordingly, there should not be any 'blue collar' jobs and we should all be elitist urbanites so could they just STFU already.

Posted by LazyWhiteGuyForObama | May 8, 2008 12:24 PM

She has got to be making this shit up on the fly and not listening to the words as they spew forth.

The outrage is over her efforts to convince the super-delegates that non-white working class democratic voters are less important than white working class voters. That such a statement would parse her lips for the record is outrageous.

Posted by sy | May 8, 2008 12:25 PM

The other problem with her claim is that it isn't true, except in certain states, mainly Appalachian states, which have unfortunately fallen at this particular moment in the primary calender. This has caused the illusion of a narrative, which everyone seems to be buying, that Obama is "losing ground" among white working class voters when he hasn't lost ground at all.

He still has all those white working class voters in states like Washington, Wisconsin, Idaho, Maine, and Iowa. The only white votes he has "lost" are votes he never had to begin with. And even if some of these voters do in the end prefer McCain to Obama just as they prefer Clinton to Obama now, which it isn't clear yet how many will, I don't think this is as big a problem that everyone is making it out to be.

Posted by former Deaniac | May 8, 2008 12:26 PM

Matt,

I think you're wrong on this one. The key phrase is: "among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans." Statements like this fall in line with the broader effort to brand Obama's black voter base as lesser than her white working class base. In this case, Clinton says that she has the hard working American voters. Obama, by implied contrasts, has the black, not hard working (lazy), and effete liberal silver spoon vote. I think you have to have your blinders on not to see this implication.

Obviously there's a reasonable argument that white working class voters are particularly important to a Democratic win. But, since Clinton's argument that Obama can't win these votes is fallacious, her argument instead boils down to a simple value judgment that white working class voters are better and more American than black votes and their elite friends. She's trying to create a reality that does not yet exist, where Obama is seen as incapable of reaching out to the "real America." It's a poisonous narrative and it's a racist narrative, which reinforces the idea that the white working class are the real people, and everyone else is an interest group. And if republicans turn this lie into a reality by repeating it over and over again in the fall, Clinton will be to blame for having sewn the seeds.

Posted by Blake Emerson | May 8, 2008 12:26 PM

"It's a poisonous narrative"

This is an important point to make. There certainly are a number of white voters (many of them older and working class) who vaguely do not like black people, and who especially will not vote for a black person who is "too black." By emphasizing the crazy notion that "white people vote for me, black people vote for him," Clinton truly is poisoning the general election well against Obama. She's painting him as the Black Candidate (who the "slightly" racist blue collar and older white voters will not vote for), as opposed to the candidate who happens to be black (who they might vote for).

Incidentally, this is why Bill's comments in South Carolina were so unacceptable. By trying to paint Obama as the Black Candidate, they are encouraging the latent racism in an important segment of voters. THIS, ITSELF, IS A DISGUSTING RACIST TACTIC. This is also why attacks via Wright are thinly-veiled forms of racism. They emphasize Obama's race in an effort to capitalize on many voters' refusal to vote for the Black Candidate.

Shorter Joe: By attempting to exploit racist attitudes against Obama, the Clintons are painting themselves as disgusting racists.

Posted by Joe | May 8, 2008 12:27 PM

You know reading this comment I just have to conclude that she IS a monster. Completely consumed by her self love and ambition. There is no innocence here, Matt. I'm sorry. Maybe we have to pretend there is to keep things cool; frankly I think Clinton is deliberately trying to stoke AA outrage so she can play victim against it. It. is. disgusting. And yet oh so typical of the American Experience. Obama is right about this, America must move past this type of politics to have any kind of decent future.

Posted by Northern Observer | May 8, 2008 12:28 PM

I agree the "hard working" trope is a red herring; that's not what's disturbing in what she said. What's disturbing is that this is an argument she's presumably making to super-delegates as to why they should give her the nomination. And it's basically, white working class voters are the important voters; the super delegates should over-rule the pledged delegate count because they should be more heavily weighted. What if we gave each black voter 85% of the vote in the primary, because white voters are the one's a Democratic nominee needs to appeal to?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1UTMndrFAU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfidftLe5Z0

Think about it. This is not an argument of how Obama needs to campaign or what their strategies should be. Hillary Clinton should be given the nomination because she appeals to white middle class voters and they are the important ones. It's not just a throw away line, this is the message that multiple Clinton surrogates are pushing.

Posted by Rick Taylor | May 8, 2008 12:41 PM

You know reading this comment I just have to conclude that she IS a monster.
We'll never know, but I'd bet the farm that Samantha got tick off and said monster because the Clinton camp was talking wink and a nod racist trash just like this.

Posted by bjd | May 8, 2008 12:42 PM

On the bright side, her campaign is no longer using racist dogwhistles--she and they are using ones that anyone can hear.

Posted by calling all toasters | May 8, 2008 12:43 PM

Put it another way: How do we feel when Republicans argue that Democratic victories are somehow less than legitimate, because some of them depend upon the over-whelming support of African Americans?

Posted by Rick Taylor | May 8, 2008 12:47 PM

At best, her statement is a silly pander that fell flat. At worst, it's racist. Either way, it shows she's just not good at this game.

Then again, when a Latino like Richardson endorses Obama, suddenly he's Judas. Apparently white working class people outside of steel states where the plants have been closing (OH, PA, Indiana) don't count because they have tended to go Obama, especially in Midwestern states to the west of Indiana. Apparently Latinos and Asians don't count when they support Obama. Her support is rather limited to places where the Clintons built a local party machine a long time ago to serve them (like Texas, which will go for McCain) or white working class people in a very narrow part of the country. You go west of the Mississippi and her name is mud, including among the white working class.

Posted by Reality Man | May 8, 2008 12:47 PM

Katherine -- you may be right. I guess by "make that argument openly" I mean acknowledge that she's doing it. You can bet that she's going to deny that this quote means what it really, really, really sounds like it means.

Posted by NS | May 8, 2008 12:48 PM

Had Governor Wallace, oops I mean Senator Clinton, added "but I do not want your vote if you are voting for me because I'm white and he's black" I would have no problem with her remark.

Posted by bjd | May 8, 2008 12:48 PM

The electoral success of the Dem Party depends on the willingness of African Americans to consistently vote for their "2nd choices" -- white moderate Dems. They have done so in nearly every election, despite the apparent unwillingness of white working class Dems to return the favor. The justification is that African Americans have a chance to participate in the nomination process; they are just unable to muster a majority for a candidate of choice.

So now that African Americans have teamed with younger Dems and a decent chunk of college-educated white Dems to form a winning primary coalition, Hillary Clinton is basically arguing that majoritarianism should be thrown to the curb, and the winning coalition should held hostage to the continued racial intransigence of white working class Dems.

The idea that the Clintons -- who would have won exactly zero elections w/o support from black voters -- are celebrating racial bloc voting and using it as their ONLY rationale for staying in the race is disgusting.

If I were a leading African-American Dem, I'd really start wondering about whether the Dem Party is treating my constituents in good faith by not booting the Clintons to the curb where they belong.

Posted by Jon | May 8, 2008 12:52 PM

Meanwhile, just from a tactical posture the closer this thing gets to being over the less point there is in Obama supporters getting super snarky and indignant about everything the Clinton campaign does.

The moment she either drops out or the party convincingly unites behind Obama and leaves her muttering to Lanny Davis and Rush about how anything can happen*, I'll agree. This remark, however, does not fall under the heading of quietly running while doing no damage. She'll be called on her mistakes until she either stops making them or stops mattering and, as Slate's Clinton death watch acknowledges, she isn't dead until she's formally out.

At this point, Obama's job is to start making people who find this sort of argument plausible like him more, not to crush Hillary Clinton.

The one good thing about Hillary's never-ending race, which will presumably continue until the convention (pledged and superdelegates could always figure "what happens in Denver stays in Denver" and be delegates gone wild, so there won't be a nominee until the convention; maybe not even then), is that she'll drive more and more of her own supporters away. Latinos, Asians, Native Americans? You're not in that group of working, hard-working Americans either.

*In light of whatever the hell she's doing presently, the argument that this year she and Bill believe anyone with a D after their name will win, so it's worth anything to get on the ticket--means won't affect the end--is compelling. To make a case for veep, drop out and deliver KY and WV for Obama, showing she can turn support for her into support for him. (No, I still wouldn't give it to her. But I'd be far more willing to believe she wanted veep if she did that.)

Posted by Deborah | May 8, 2008 12:55 PM

"Put it another way: How do we feel when Republicans argue that Democratic victories are somehow less than legitimate, because some of them depend upon the over-whelming support of African Americans?

Posted by Rick Taylor | May 8, 2008 12:47 PM"

Bingo. Is there a disgusting right-wing frame she doesn't use?

Posted by Reality Man | May 8, 2008 12:58 PM

Just to add, she also said:

"Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.”

Posted by Rick Taylor | May 8, 2008 12:58 PM

It's not just Hillary --it's also people in her campaign.

From http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/clinton-touts-white-support/

"Mr. Begala, a Clinton supporter, said the party could not win in November with just “eggheads and African-Americans,” "
----------
Make that SHIFTLESS eggheads.

Posted by Don Williams | May 8, 2008 1:00 PM

She is still in because she actually believes Obama cannot win in Nov. She believes that there is no way a black man can be elected Pres - its a fairy tale.

So now she goes for the nuclear option - to play the race card every way possible to show everyone that white america will not elect him - the fear factor, stirring up hatred, stirring up violence.

Of course she will fail because the party will eventually come to its senses and eject her - but she will do untold damage in the process.

Only the Superdels can prevent this final madness by backing Obama now.

Posted by dg | May 8, 2008 1:01 PM

She is still in because she actually believes Obama cannot win in Nov. She believes that there is no way a black man can be elected Pres - its a fairy tale.

No. Does she "actually believe" that Michigan was fairly decided? That she dodged sniper fire in Bosnia? That caucuses don't count? She will say or do anything, even stir up racism, to grab power. She is vile and disgusting, and imputing better motives to her is simply wrong. Period.

Posted by calling all toasters | May 8, 2008 1:06 PM

"Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.”

Shorter Hillary: Saying that black people are stupid and lazy isn't racist, because everyone knows that it's true!

Posted by Joe | May 8, 2008 1:07 PM

I certainly agree that inflaming the "white people won't vote for our party's nominee" talk once it's become clear that Obama is, in fact, the party's nominee is pretty nauseating stuff, but I'd like to highlight a different point:

In what sense has Clinton proven that she has a "broader base"? Her "base" is about 47% of Democrats nationwide. Obama's "base" is about 49% of Democrats nationwide. Just because there are more white non-Democrats than black non-Democrats doesn't mean they're going to magically vote for Clinton in the general election.

It's worth noting that you never hear the Obama campaign or the media arguing that Hillary will have a tougher time getting the votes of men or college-educated whites who may vote for McCain because of his reformist and socially moderate credentials. Even though that may explain why national polls show Obama and Clinton running roughly even with McCain, even as the media fixates on the single demographic slice of the Democratic Party with which Hillary Clinton has an advantage.

Posted by RS | May 8, 2008 1:12 PM

"She is still in because she actually believes Obama cannot win in Nov. She believes that there is no way a black man can be elected Pres - its a fairy tale."

That may or may not be true, but Hillary deserves plenty of criticism for this latest comment because (intentionally or not) it fits in with her campaign's efforts to define this race in racial terms.

Some folks would disagree, but it's clear to me that the Clinton's decided that injecting SOME racial polarization into this race would benefit them. I also think they 100% believed they could get away with it, that they could try and play on white suspicions and resistence to a black candidate but still nab 20 to 30 percent of the AA vote. I'm not saying it was their main strategy or even one they unleashed completely, but bookend Bill's South Carolina comments with the latest from Hillary and I don't think you can deny that racializing the primaries is something they've spent a lot of time thnking about.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | May 8, 2008 1:25 PM

RS: The person who loses has a broader base--they prove it by getting fewer votes and losing the election. Of something like that.

Also worth noting that in NC and IN 7% of her voters said they'd choose McCain over her in the fall (vs. 2% of Obama's saying they were M>O). So her broad base, which is demonstrably narrower than Obama's base judging by election results, has a hefty number of people who will vote for a Republican over her in the fall.

Posted by Deborah | May 8, 2008 1:49 PM

Matt's right, as of Tuesday night, the primary is over, so there's no sense beating on people who like Hillary.

Hillary's negative campaign is no doubt helping McCain, but it's a Democratic year in so many ways that it's more than likely that the voters of North Carolina and Indiana just elected the next Prez.

Obama has campaigned on the theme of turning the page on both the Bush years and the Clinton years, so I don't see him offering her the vp spot. The Clinton's are finito.

Posted by Peter K. | May 8, 2008 1:49 PM

I agree phrases like "hard-working Americans" are not meant to be taken literally, but that hardly constitutes a defense of Clinton's statement.

The point of phrases like "hard-working Americans" when used in this sort of context is to separate out one subset of Americans who are considered to be the true and virtuous Americans, and then to define everybody else in America as somehow not real Americans because they are not in this preferred subset. Traditional targets of this sort of exclusionary rhetoric include Americans who live in coastal cities, college-educated Americans, religious and ethnic minorities, and so on.

And that is exactly what Clinton was doing when she used this phrase: excluding black people from the class of people to be considered real and virtuous Americans. So, I hardly see how pointing out she probably didn't mean to literally call black people lazy is a defense--what she was really doing was bad enough.

Posted by DTM | May 8, 2008 1:49 PM

Urban educated whites are a growing demographic.

White blue-collar is a shrinking demographic.

Why look backwards instead of forwards?

Posted by libarbarian | May 8, 2008 2:07 PM

no, screw it-----blow her out of the political waters. obama must make nice, but the rest of us aren't constrained by necessity.

the clintons have been an embarrassment to the democratic party since 1993. the sooner they and their coterie of DLC triangulators no longer have a stranglehold on the party, the sooner we begin to build a progressive majority.

when it comes to party loyalty, I see little difference b/t the clintons and zell miller and joe lieberman at this pt.

Posted by mencken | May 8, 2008 2:13 PM

The irony, of course, is that she wouldn't have had to rely on any of her counter-factual arguments why she should have won the nomination (if the Democrats had winner-take-all primaries, no caucuses, etc.) if she only SOUGHT the black vote instead of constantly belittling the black vote. A good chunk were hers to lose (looking at the early polling).

Posted by aba23 | May 8, 2008 2:22 PM

Any acceptance of this comment as anything but a race and class based coded intentionally divisive comment means that you buy into the idea that African-Americans and college educated Americans aren't hard working and honestly are somewhat less "American" than working class whites.

Posted by Jay | May 8, 2008 2:22 PM

The broader base argument just doesn't wash in light of the popular vote tallies -- which Obama leads by about 500,000 votes.

Most of these tallies do not include caucus state results.

Even if we were to factor in the uncontested Michigan and Florida primaries Obama would still come out ahead.

When the final battery of contests is over this one will be a little closer if we include Puerto Rico, which doesn't have a general election vote, but in a worst case Obama still has a slight edge in the popular vote.

The main problem with Clinton's argument is that it has no basis in reality. For a candidate who already has credibility problems, her fact-free argument does a disservice to her. Not many people are buying the argument at this stage.

Posted by JP | May 8, 2008 2:25 PM

You don't hear Obama arguing that Hillary can't win the black vote, when the evidence suggests that she will have a harder time winning them over than Obama will the white working class.

Exactly. I'll retract the criticism as soon as Obama surrogates and pundits keep asking how CLinton can possibly win when she has less appeal to African-Americans. It never seems to cut the other way, with the implication is that black votes just don't quite count the same.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | May 8, 2008 2:29 PM

Charity is stupid, here. This is Hilary Clinton, a senator from New York, not an analyst for the Politico. It is hard to believe, Matt, that you don't know the difference. Here's the difference - making acceptable talk about hard working white americans, which is tacitly approving the idea of lazy black americans, has been the main theme of racism since the take down of the legal structure of Southern Apartheid, in the sixties. You can't be a political commentator on Atlantic and not know this.

Your fear of being indignant about it is, I think, due to the success of "contrarian" journalism of the Slate type. It would be so uncool to call someone on the language of George Wallace, when everyone you know is soooo post-racial - which is how Saletan was able to take a cool look at scientific evidence that whites are superior and find that it was all true! Isn't it neat that the post-racial stance just involves going back to the old Jim Crow stance? Makes things so simple...

However, I don't think you, Matt, are actually in favor of that. I do think your lack of imagination here - as to, for instance, what reading that statement from Hilary Clinton means to the average black reader of U.S.A. today - is incredibly dense. Get your head out of the contrarian continuum, because, frankly, it is full of shit. You don't want to end up being one of those writers that Steven Sailor can point to as an "even Matt Yglesias says" ... because that would be gruesome, disgusting, and would utterly appall the spirit of your brave Grandmother.

Posted by roger | May 8, 2008 2:31 PM

"As quoted, that's a dumb thing to say which seems to imply that non-white voters or perhaps all Obama supporters are lazy."

Not lazy just hacks.

The white working class represents a majority of Americans.

If Obama successfully bullies his way to the Democratic nomination he may or may not win in November.

But Democrats may find that - at a time the Republican Party is more embattled than it has been for many, many years - they lose significant numbers of older voters, white working class voters, Hispanic voters, and centrists of all stripes to the ranks of Independents and the GOP for years to come.

This year may not represent the beginning of a long term revival of the Democratic Party so much as the solidifying of decades-long trends toward the Party becoming a bastion of the upper middle class, new economy elites, and multicultural liberals.

Posted by Linus | May 8, 2008 2:32 PM

Matt, whether this comment was "offensive" or not is not really the point. Someone who really cared about being sensitive to issues of race in this country would never say anything like this. As this race has gone on, the Clinton's have made many attempts, both implicit and explicit, to devalue Obama's support among African Americans. This is yet another, and it shows a total disregard for an issue that is terribly sensitive in this country, an issue that someone of Hillary's generation ought to understand well. She show's that she doesn't really care about any of that, and is willing to use race as a wedge so long as it lets her win. The Black man can't get hard working, white Americans to vote for him because he's Black and they're racist, so vote for me. That's basically what she's saying, and it's beginning to tear our party apart.

Posted by Thomas | May 8, 2008 2:34 PM

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."

Hey wait a minute ... I worked tremendously hard in college to drink as much alcohol as possible!

Posted by Peter K. | May 8, 2008 2:36 PM

Linus--your working-class cred is kind of in doubt. I'm amazed a super-tough, working-class, white guy is afraid of being "bullied" by a latte-sipper like Obama. What, did he inspire at you?

Posted by calling all toasters | May 8, 2008 2:40 PM

Let's try a though experiment. Suppose Clinton was in the lead, and Obama was continuing a hopeless campaign against her, mired in debt, with no chance of success outside of the super-delegates choosing him over the pledged delegate leader. Now suppose Obama said he should be the nominee, because Hillary Clinton was hopelessly unpopular with African Americans, a key demographic the party has always depended upon to win. What do you suppose peoples' reactions would be?

Posted by Rick Taylor | May 8, 2008 2:42 PM

Of course, Hillary isn't saying anything here that the media haven't been saying for months, although they usually are more careful to couch it in euphemism. How often are the terms "blue collar" and "working class" used as synonyms for "white Democrat," ignoring the substantial number of African-Americans who fit those descriptions.

The reason Clinton and political reporters in general can imply that white voters are more significant than black voters is twofold: one, there are simply more of them, even in a Democratic primary; and 2) the tacit assumption is that Clinton can ignore blacks now because they have no choice but to come back to the fold in November (e.g. 1984 and 1988), whereas all whites are thought to be swing voters in a potential Obama/McCain matchup. It's really demeaning, and Clinton is clearly not mindful of or simply doesn't believe that the Clinton brand is taking a terrible beating among black Democrats these days.

I never thought I'd see the day that a post-Wallace Democrat running a national campaign would brag openly about how she is the candidate of white resentment. It's a really sad end for Clinton, not to mention utterly dismissive of the party's recent history.

Posted by ChuckE | May 8, 2008 2:49 PM

What Roger and Thomas said. This is boilerplate populist rhetoric used since Wallace and Nixon to poise a hardworking white 'silent majority' opposed by a coalition of elitist eggheads and parasitic members of the 'underclass.' It shows that Clinton knows that language very well (she learned it from Bill). What does it mean that Matt doesn't really recognize it?

There are a lot of really good recent histories about this language, from Matt Lassiter's _Silent Majority_, to Nancy MacLean's _Freedom is Not Enough_, to Tom Sugrue's _Origins of the Urban Crisis_. It's too bad that no progressive bloggers in Washington bother to read recent academic history.

Posted by Andrew | May 8, 2008 2:56 PM

Urban educated whites are a growing demographic.

White blue-collar is a shrinking demographic.

Why look backwards instead of forwards?

Fuck, why do we have to choose? Barack Obama has done well among white blue-collar voters in some states, and we can hope he'll grab more as he goes and as John McCain continues to say scary stupid shit. White blue-collar is still important; just not important enough to immolate the party over.

Posted by Persia | May 8, 2008 3:16 PM

Why doesn't Hillary say she mis-spoke?

The Clinton's have certainly earned a deep well of Good Will, and African Americans, like hard-working white Americans, can NEVER do enough to repay The Clinton's, but these reamrks of hers sound racist.

Sorry, Mr. Yglesias, why doesn't either Clinton ever admit that sometimes they say things that are stupid?

Imagine if John McCain says,

"I am grateful for the support of working, hard-working, white Americans, and I can assure them that I will continue to seek their support"?

in late October? The remark won't have any racial content because Hillary has emptied it out.

Hard working white Americans are the best.

Posted by tjproudamerican | May 8, 2008 4:24 PM

It is odd how backwards the language of choice is here. The white working class choice is not to indulge the luxury of a dying racism, but to vote either for a Republican candidate who has openly avowed policies leading to their even further impoverishment, or a Democratic candidate who - though facing the Bush era's 500 billion dollar deficit - is going to work for their economic interests.

I think Hilary Clinton is underestimating the intelligence of those hard working whites she despises enough to think are rednecks nostalgic for Jim Crow. But this last flash of Clintinoid desperation might just make it a lot harder for her to hold on to that Senate seat in New York. She might want to consider doing her own apology - much like the apologizing she was always demanding from Obama, about things he never said or gave any hint of agreeing with.

Posted by roger | May 8, 2008 4:29 PM

I stopped listening to that particular lady on Tuesday, when I clearly heard the fat one sing.

Posted by Hans B | May 8, 2008 5:30 PM

I have to take issue with the whole "she's saying black votes are worth more than white votes" argument.

Yes, she is saying that, but it's nothing to do with the intrinsic worth of black vs. white, it's to do with white blue-collar workers and their potential as swing voters. She's essentially saying to the superdelegates: "In every white working-class voter there lurks a closet racist just waiting to become part of the Reagan coalition. I, with my new-found shooting and kegging skills, can keep these folk on board." By contrast, no African-American in their right mind is going to vote Republican, so their votes essentially don't matter.

Now you can find that odious and, in so far as it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, highly irresponsible, but I don't think it betrays disrespect for black voters so much as just taking them for granted.

Posted by Pete | May 8, 2008 6:25 PM

Roger beat me to it.

Posted by Pete | May 8, 2008 6:30 PM

I think it's best to treat Hillary as an addict--one who is addicted to the pursuit of power and any vile politics that will get her there. She is sort of like the family member who steals cash from our purse to fuel her meth habit. We keep forgiving her after the wrongs us, hoping that she'll behave, but then she does it again (and again and again). Its a vicious cycle and past time for some tough love.

Posted by ben | May 8, 2008 6:40 PM

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I do root for common sense - people ought to at least acknowledge her intro:

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

I don't see why the rest is even controversial - Hillary will need to persuade blacks and the college-educated libs currently backing Barack to actually come out and vote for her - since these groups traditionally go Democratic, that does not look like a job for the Impossible Missions Force.

Barack will have to persuade elderly whites and working class whites (i.e., former Reagan Democrats and their demographic counterparts 28 years later) not to defect again to the elderly white war hero.

Does that sound easier or harder than Hillary's assignment?

She may be wrong, but the notion that she simply needs to secure the traditional Dem base while Barack needs to nail down swing Dems who aren't getting behind him is not absurd on its face.

Posted by Tom Maguire | May 8, 2008 6:41 PM

Hillary will need to persuade blacks and the college-educated libs currently backing Barack to actually come out and vote for her - since these groups traditionally go Democratic, that does not look like a job for the Impossible Missions Force.

Maybe, or they could just stay home. Hillary has made it a point of outright insulting them for the last several months, saying that black voters count for less than white voters and that the college-educated liberals are effete elites. At this point in the primary, she is merely pissing them off. If she succeeds in stealing the nomination at the convention, two months before the GE, then they'll be enraged. Any election depends on turnout and there's no way she'd get a decent turnout from these groups (that she'd need) in the GE.

Posted by ben | May 8, 2008 6:47 PM

I reiterate my prediction.

Clinton will stay in the race until the convention, and then file lawsuits if the convention doesn't go her way.

Her absolute goal here is to either force the DNC to give her the nomination, or insure that Obama loses to McCain, so she has a shot in 2012 (she thinks.)

This is the "war crimes" method of politics.

Anybody who thinks Clinton wouldn't do this is seriously naive.

And anybody who thinks Clinton just "misspoke" here is also seriously naive. Both Clintons are experts are parsing "the meaning of is" and they don't do this sort of thing by mistake.

This woman is going to destroy the Democratic Party's chances of winning the 2008 election - and Bush and Cheney will help by starting an Iran war.

Once again, the Democrats have fucked up and lost their best and only chance to regain power.

You people might as well be Republicans since it appears the Dems can't beat them no matter what.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 8, 2008 7:00 PM

Clinton is behaving like a punch-drunk boxer in a china shop, making wild swings in any direction and hoping that one will connect .

If Obama's job is "to start making people who find this sort of argument plausible like him more, not to crush Hillary Clinton", then Hillary Clinton's job is to stop her campaign as quickly as possible and work towards mending the damage she has created.

Posted by Randy | May 8, 2008 7:18 PM

Anybody who thinks Clinton wouldn't do this is seriously naive.

Count me among the seriously naive, here, then. She's lost. If the fat lady hasn't sung, she's certainly doing her warm up vocals. There is no way Obama doesn't wind up with the majority of the pledged delegates, supers are now breaking for him in greater numbers than for her, she gets a deal on Michigan and Florida that would put her over the top how exactly? The only path I'm seeing to her victory here is Obama tells the press, "tail me, you'll be very bored," they do, and he gets caught with Jeremiah Wright making bombs in Bill Ayers' basement. Sure, she's saying she's in this till the end. And she'll keep saying that till the minute she concedes.

Posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax | May 8, 2008 9:23 PM

But Democrats may find that - at a time the Republican Party is more embattled than it has been for many, many years - they lose significant numbers of older voters, white working class voters, Hispanic voters, and centrists of all stripes to the ranks of Independents and the GOP for years to come.

Well, if Obama's support among some of these groups is because he hasn't been providing enough specifics about how to improve the economic standings of those who are not super-well off, then that's legitmately on him. I'm sure he can correct that.

But assuming he does that--or even assuming he stays where he is--does anyone seriously believe from an objective point of view those groups' policy preferences are closer to those of the GOP? To do so would require assuming:

* Older voters can't wait to privatize Social Security;
* Rust-belt workers want more unfettered free trade with no programs to help compensate for all those outsourced jobs
* Hispanics forgetting that the party of Tancredo wants to build a fence and arrest anyone named Sanchez who doesn't have all their papers
* Centrist voters would rather stay 100 years in Iraq, have the Supreme Court outlaw abortion, mandate creationism, and keep future Terri Schiavos alive forever

Oh, and let's not forget bailing out Wall Street, letting homeowners eat cake, and Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran

No, if Obama loses large numbers of those groups in November, the #1 reason won't be his policy, but his pigment. And if so, well, America will get what it deserves with President McSame.

Posted by Joey C | May 8, 2008 9:26 PM

While the Clintons are not racist, she is passing a great moment which would have crowned all her years as a great American Statewoman having worked so hard for civil liberties in this country. Knowing that lower income working class white people may be prejudiced against Obama because of the color of his skin Hilary would have seized the opportunity to deal a death blow to the “Southern Strategy” once and for all; she has the power to make greatest lemonade from the “bittergate”. This would be her greatest legacy and would match that of an Obama presidency in further perfecting this Union, one generation at a time.

But then a commentator on Hardball, "If a donkey was in the voting booth and met Hilary at this hour,she would play the "animal card"......... too bad I may have over estimated her ingenuity

Posted by Jezz | May 8, 2008 10:27 PM

A few years back Mr. Moulitsas himself said he had little interest in policy. Like Karl Rove he's a political creature.

It's ironic that a group of people who call themselves the reality-based community should join a messianic cult of style.

But of course it's worse than ironic, if mostly unsurprising; the adults left the room years ago.

The American president is not a spiritual leader. The American president is not the chief advocate of social justice.

I see little evidence that Mr. Obama and his cult of personality understand the responsibilities of the office now. I'm just some guy but I won't give away my vote to those people.

Posted by Linus | May 8, 2008 10:42 PM

I see little evidence that Mr. Obama and his cult of personality understand the responsibilities of the office now. I'm just some guy but I won't give away my vote to those people.

John Sidney McCain (R-Arizona) thanks you for your support in the 2008 Presidential Elections.

Posted by Joey C | May 8, 2008 10:47 PM

"Barack will have to persuade elderly whites and working class whites (i.e., former Reagan Democrats and their demographic counterparts 28 years later) not to defect again to the elderly white war hero."

First, it is a pet peeve of mine that people seem to keep overlooking they need to include the crucial qualifier "Democrats" when they talk about Clinton's coalition (e.g., that should be "elderly white Democrats" and "working class white Democrats"). Among other things, that underscores the point that we have no idea if Clinton would outperform Obama among those groups once the contest was no longer largely limited to Democrats.

Second, Clinton's appeal among lower-income white people is not universal across the country, which indeed is part of why she has lost the nomination contest. Generally, these demographic theories can't explain what happened in places like Iowa and Wisconsin and the states westward from there, in contrast to, say, Pennsylvania. But another theory can, namely that Clinton does best among lower-income white people in places where: (a) those people feel a strong affinity for BILL Clinton; and/or (b) where Clinton was given the support of the local political machine.

Of course pointing all that out would have hastened Clinton's demise. So, the complicit media didn't point it out.

Posted by DTM | May 8, 2008 10:48 PM

I am highly amused that some Clinton supporters are still pushing the "cult of personality" nonsense after the gas tax holiday episode.

Generally, I am amused at the idea that if a candidate for your party's nomination is particularly good at doing political things like giving inspiring speeches, that is a reason NOT to nominate that person. By that logic, you should nominate the worst politician you can find in your party, since that person will presumably be the most free from these evil abilities to actually persuade people.

Posted by DTM | May 8, 2008 11:00 PM

I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I do root for common sense - people ought to at least acknowledge her intro:

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

I don't see why the rest is even controversial - Hillary will need to persuade blacks and the college-educated libs currently backing Barack to actually come out and vote for her - since these groups traditionally go Democratic, that does not look like a job for the Impossible Missions Force.

Barack will have to persuade elderly whites and working class whites (i.e., former Reagan Democrats and their demographic counterparts 28 years later) not to defect again to the elderly white war hero.

Does that sound easier or harder than Hillary's assignment?

She may be wrong, but the notion that she simply needs to secure the traditional Dem base while Barack needs to nail down swing Dems who aren't getting behind him is not absurd on its face.

---

I not only didn't ignore her intro, but highlighted it as the most absurd part of her statement. Even if she meant what you say you she meant, it makes no sense to claim voters who didn't actually vote for you as part of your "base." That defies English.

At best, it's grossly presumptuous. National polls find the Democratic candidates running pretty similarly against McCain, so either the number of Clinton supporters who would really vote for McCain over Obama is almost negligible, or they're being cancelled out significantly by Obama supporters who won't back Hillary.

Posted by RS | May 8, 2008 11:05 PM

RS's post reminds me of another point:

Even if Clinton got 100% of Obama's current coalition for the general election, that maybe gets her to 40% (and vice-versa, for that matter). Yet, the primaries tell you almost nothing about who would be able to get that next 11% or so necessary to win the general election.

What this shows is that the results in the primaries are basically useless for predicting who would win the general election--which we knew anyway from history, and which logic dicates since the other party's nominee gets to win primaries too. But again, these were Clinton talking points, and the media was complicit, so this has all been strung along even though it makes no real sense.

Posted by DTM | May 9, 2008 12:00 AM

A few years back Mr. Moulitsas himself said he had little interest in policy.

And this matters why, exactly? Mr. Moulitsas himself wasn't on my ballot.

I see little evidence that Mr. Obama and his cult of personality understand the responsibilities of the office now. I'm just some guy but I won't give away my vote to those people.

As opposed to whom - Clinton or McCain? McCain's more adept at understanding economic matters than Obama how exactly? McCain's foreign policy is going to work better for us how exactly? McCain's Supreme Court picks are going to work better for us how exactly?

By all means, vote for Clinton if your state still hasn't had its primary, and if she's still in the race by the time your primary comes up, and if she's the one you want. But please, come fall, vote for the Democrat against McCain.

Posted by Lynn Gazis-Sax | May 9, 2008 2:03 AM

I've been trying to heed Matt's call for comity. But I just want to make one point.

By making a case against Obama that's so strongly negative and racial, Clinton and her supporters undermine her own rationale. That is, you can believe that voters support Hillary because of her alleged experience or her more universal health care plan . . . or you can believe they support her because she's white and they don't want the black guy. If it's the former, then Clinton really has some kind of coalition. If it's the latter, then you're really just saying there's a cohesive anti-Obama coalition (I don't believe that's true, but that's what the argument seems to be). And if the superdelegates were to throw the nomination to Clinton, any racially motivated anti-Obama coalition would be a dead letter going into the fall.

After all, John McCain's white too. There's a strong possibility that racists wouldn't remain loyal to Clinton after they'd enabled her to drive the black fellow from the race.

Posted by southpaw | May 9, 2008 4:41 AM

Lynn, I didn't say Clinton could win the nomination at this point, no matter what tactics she tries, unless of course the DNC, faced with lawsuits forever, just give up and give it to her, which is unlikely.

I'm saying she will continue to screw up Obama's chances of winning the Presidency by employing these tactics and thus interfering with the Democratic campaign against McCain.

And she will use these moronic Clinton supporters who post here to take votes away from Obama in November.

I'm saying she will do this deliberately. It has nothing to do with "being a fighter" or whatever other crap her supporters talk about. She is deliberately screwing up the Democrats this year in hopes of having a shot in 2012 - and possibly for other, worse reasons.

It could well be that she is a right wing "Manchurian candidate" placed by the right wing Christian cult she is a member of to do just this - insure a Republican victory either by getting the nomination and throwing the race, or winning and being a "right wing Democrat" like Bill was, or by screwing up the other Democratic candidate's campaign.

This woman is not a Democrat in any sense I and any Democrat I've ever read about understand the term. No Democrat with loyalty to the Party would do what she is doing - deliberately undermining the Party's chances for electoral success in November.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 9, 2008 8:03 AM

"Generally, I am amused at the idea that if a candidate for your party's nomination is particularly good at doing political things like giving inspiring speeches, that is a reason NOT to nominate that person."

You and others will I hope forgive any rudeness above.

But I find it crazy that the Democrats are willing to toss their strongest presidential candidate since Bill Clinton who also happens to be the first serious female candidate ever into the scrap heap of history so that a talented, younger candidate with insufficient experience and twenty more prime years of his to become president can become president immediately; the whole thing smacks of impatience, irrationality, immaturity at a very critical time.

Part of what I like about Hillary Clinton is her maturity; despite years of abuse in the White House she kept her public composure earning the respect if possibly never quite affection from Senate colleagues who said and did terrible things to her and her husband. If you've been through shit in your own life you know something about how hard that is.

Another part of what I like about Hillary Clinton is her transparency. She's a centrist who we know will govern as a centrist. The fact that so many people dislike her and the fact that she would be likely to take crap from all sides and the fact that the thing she seems to get off on most is solving problems makes me think it will be easier to keep her honest.

I think what people want now is to think less about politics and policies and to have a president who takes on the big problems in front of the country now rationally, fairly, and in consideration of and consultation with all sides.

America is the most powerful country in the world with lots of responsibilities. The government is a big, unwieldy thing not very amenable to change. Corporations are the most powerful and significant NGOs. All of these things are likely to be no less true a decade from now - and four or five decades from now - as now.

The LA Times in their endorsement of Obama called him a poem. You'll forgive me: I don't think Americans need a poem in the White House, just a capable, centrist politician. And if people can't see that Clan Obama is a cult of personality it's probably because they're a part of it.

Posted by Linus | May 9, 2008 12:25 PM

Matt, I lost a lot of respect for you.

1. As an African-American, I wholly reject the proposition that "working, hard working" Americans are white.

2. As a Black voter, I wholly reject the notion that my vote is captive to the Democrat party (I will continue to call them the Democrat party as a show of disrespect for as long as they chose to allow my vote to be disrespected).

3. The second order assumption is that Hillary's coalition is better because us Black folk will gladly rejoin the flock with her self-proclaimed racist white coalition. A coalition that we have all seen her aggressively court.

4. I feel like saying something Petey would, so I will desist.

5. You just lost one Black reader.

6. Cheers.

Posted by Bubba | May 10, 2008 1:38 AM