The Clintons have been playing an odious game of racial politics lately, and black voters are punishing them for it. They've made sure to have surrogates bring up Obama's drug use as a teen, to emphasize his Muslim sounding middle name and to talk about candidates "shucking and jiving."
All of this was an effort to remind white voters of Obama's race and to play on their latent prejudices. Does this make the Clintons racists? No, but it does make them unscrupulous. They are willing to say subtly to white voters "Hey, you don't want to vote for the black guy, do you?"
Her campaign can't afford to cede the black vote to Obama entirely, but my guess is 30% is a number she can work with. Her coalition is: working class whites, professional women, older women and retirees, union members, Latinos, and registered Democrats. Obama's is blacks, younger voters, independents, and higher income liberals. Moreover, in Michigan Hillary faced an organized, high profile media campaign explicitly appealing to racial solidarity. She won't necessarily face that in every state.
The Clintons have been playing an odious game of racial politics lately, and black voters are punishing them for it.
I see it differently. In my view Clinton campaign surrogates have made a few faux pas, and these missteps been vigorously seized upon by the Obama campaign and/or its surrogates to paint Hillary as a racist (I mean, pointing out that the activism of, say, an MLK, ultimately had to be accompanied by political leadership is racist? Please.), so as to solidify the black vote. The Clinton campaign has hit back hard, saying, "Fine, you wanna make this a campaign about race? You can't afford to make this a campaign about race." It looks like both campaigns have now, thankfully, decided to take the high road. We'll see if the truce lasts.
Apparently it's not just my view (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article3192712.ece) :
The thinnest and most whiny complaint of all was the one that insisted Bill Clinton was “racially insensitive” because he said that Mr Obama's claim to have been consistently against the Iraq war was a “fairytale”. I cannot for the life of me see the potential racial slur in that. Even if, as the Obama camp has wildly contended, Mr Clinton meant to suggest that the story of Mr Obama's own candidacy was a fairytale, it still wouldn't be a racial slur. Many people think that it is a fairytale, in the nicest sense. As in a dream. Now who was it who once had one of those? The thin catalogue of complaints against the Clinton campaign from the Obama campaign were unfounded, manipulative and self-indulgent. At best they called into question the oversensitivity of Mr Obama, at worst they showed him willing to play a divisive race card that is damaging the entire Democratic Party and tarnishing a great and historic electoral contest for the centre Left. The whole episode has convinced me he isn't tough enough for the White House.
For since when has referring to somebody's past admitted drug use - if indeed the Clinton campaign ever intended to do that, which is far from clear - been a racial slur? More racist, I would say, to equate drugs with blacks, and that's what the Obama campaign is doing, not the Clinton one.
As for Mrs Clinton's statement that Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality was realised only when President Johnson managed to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress? No more than fact, surely; an attack on Mr Obama's lack of experience, certainly, but hardly a slur upon King. Mr Obama's campaign is twisting things so that a comment about any black man is a comment about him, just as any attack on him is an attack on all black people. I ask again: who is playing the race card here? Mr Obama seems determined to cry “race” whenever anyone attacks him. He has been playing the game carefully, admittedly, allowing spokesmen and leaked memos to speak for him, while publicly denying that he wants to stoke up the race issue. For a candidate who seeks to be beyond race, it is a dangerous game, which perhaps is why on Monday he told a rally: “We share the same goals, we are all Democrats, we all believe in civil rights, we all believe in equal rights”, adding that the Clintons “have historically and consistently been on the right side of civil rights issues. I think they care about the African-American community and they care about all Americans and they want to see equal rights and equal justice in this country”. And he could have added, but didn't: and I do not believe that they are playing the race card, and I believe they are above that - so stop making those claims in my name.
I don't think the support breaks down quite like Jasper suggests. While he may be right, I don't see Hillary dominating the professional female, working class, or latino votes. And she will struggle to hold even 30% of the black vote.
Seems to me that Hillary is the type of woman that working class males might find annoying, and if her message is replicated by other candidates (who strike a more convincing populist note), what would be her appeal?
As for the black vote, I would venture that if approximately 80-90% of blacks vote Democrat 100% of the time, nuances in stances be damned, I hardly see them lining up behind Hillary when Obama has the same message, but is both black and more appealing in presentation. In fact because blacks are pretty committed to ALWAYS voting Democrat, voting for Obama let's them feel like they are deviating from the norm and being adventurous with their vote, without actually deviating from the norm. The black version of a Republican voting independent.
In other words, I think Hillary and Obama attract the same types, but Hillary carries a lot of baggage in terms of likeability and issues of race just compound the problem.
Well Jasper, you seem very naive. Do you really believe the "shuck and jive" comment by one Clinton surrogate and the "Barak H- Obama" comment by another were just innocent mistakes?
While the Clintons themselves are very likely not racists they are not above cozying up to racists at times. So Bill Clinton said of segregationist J. William Fulbright "I admired him. I liked him."
I myself don't admire any segregationists. Do you? Indeed Clinton even called Fulbright his "mentor."
Governor Clinton also signed a law giving Robert E. Lee a state holiday and another marking "Confederate Flag Day." Again, Clinton is not a segregationist or a secessionist, but he is willing to pander to poor and prejudiced whites when doing so suits his electoral interests. And so is his wife.
So Alice Miles agrees with the views of a Clinton supporter. Who is she again, and why should she be considered any more credible than any other columnist?
Nothing about the Michigan Democratic Primary vote has any real validity, because everyone knew it was meaningless. Kudos to people who showed up and voted anyway, but without Obama and Edwards actually on the ballot you can't really conclude anything about the votes.
It's more accurate to say that Hillary only got 30% of the African-Americans who bothered to vote. Even so, she got 55% in what was basically a straw poll. Hardly bad news.
[Bill] Clinton is not a segregationist or a secessionist, but he is willing to pander to poor and prejudiced whites when doing so suits his electoral interests. And so is his wife.
ROFL. Moe, you dedicate 90% of your post to attacking Bill Clinton, then try to link it to Hillary at the last minute. "Here's all the reasons Bill Clinton's a jerk. Oh yeah, and Hillary is his wife, so she's a jerk for all the same reasons." Too funny.
'I myself don't admire any segregationists. Do you? Indeed Clinton even called Fulbright his "mentor."' - rwe
I admire Washington and Jefferson. I guess they were not segregationists though. They just had some rather backward ideas about how some people should be integrated. Lincoln was a segregationist I think. I admire him too.
When it comes to judging people remember they are a product of their times. I really don't know that much about Fulbright. Maybe he was odious, maybe not. George Wallace was an awful man because he saw championing segregation as a means to personal power.
If Fulbright was not a senator, some other segregationist would be. If Wallace did not take up the mantle of a radical champion of segregation, it might be that no one would have filled his shoes, or at least not so well.
-Blacks go almost all Democrat.
-Blacks are 30% of South Carolina.
-Therefore, blacks are 60% (!) of South Carolina's Democrat voters.
-Therefore, Hillary_Clinton doesn't have a chance there.
According to CNN's exit polling data, in 2004 South Carolina was 44% Republican and 33% Democrat, and African-American voters (who broke 85-15 for Kerry) were indeed 30% of the total electorate.
Your assumption is that African-Americans will overwhelmingly break for Obama (or Edwards), and I don't know that you can make that assumption.
The Clintons, neither of them, are respecters of people. Anyone who would do or say the things we know that the Clintons have done or said, are not respecters of persons. When Hillary Clinton makes civil rights claims, incidentally, she was 17 years old in 1964 - I for one doubt Hillary played any significant role – or even in subsequent years. Anyway, I look forward to the results of the citizens of the State of South Carolina putting the matter to rest: http://theseedsof9-11.com
The Clintons have been playing an odious game of racial politics lately, and black voters are punishing them for it. They've made sure to have surrogates bring up Obama's drug use as a teen, to emphasize his Muslim sounding middle name and to talk about candidates "shucking and jiving."
All of this was an effort to remind white voters of Obama's race and to play on their latent prejudices. Does this make the Clintons racists? No, but it does make them unscrupulous. They are willing to say subtly to white voters "Hey, you don't want to vote for the black guy, do you?"
Her campaign can't afford to cede the black vote to Obama entirely, but my guess is 30% is a number she can work with. Her coalition is: working class whites, professional women, older women and retirees, union members, Latinos, and registered Democrats. Obama's is blacks, younger voters, independents, and higher income liberals. Moreover, in Michigan Hillary faced an organized, high profile media campaign explicitly appealing to racial solidarity. She won't necessarily face that in every state.
The Clintons have been playing an odious game of racial politics lately, and black voters are punishing them for it.
I see it differently. In my view Clinton campaign surrogates have made a few faux pas, and these missteps been vigorously seized upon by the Obama campaign and/or its surrogates to paint Hillary as a racist (I mean, pointing out that the activism of, say, an MLK, ultimately had to be accompanied by political leadership is racist? Please.), so as to solidify the black vote. The Clinton campaign has hit back hard, saying, "Fine, you wanna make this a campaign about race? You can't afford to make this a campaign about race." It looks like both campaigns have now, thankfully, decided to take the high road. We'll see if the truce lasts.
Apparently it's not just my view (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/alice_miles/article3192712.ece) :
I don't think the support breaks down quite like Jasper suggests. While he may be right, I don't see Hillary dominating the professional female, working class, or latino votes. And she will struggle to hold even 30% of the black vote.
Seems to me that Hillary is the type of woman that working class males might find annoying, and if her message is replicated by other candidates (who strike a more convincing populist note), what would be her appeal?
As for the black vote, I would venture that if approximately 80-90% of blacks vote Democrat 100% of the time, nuances in stances be damned, I hardly see them lining up behind Hillary when Obama has the same message, but is both black and more appealing in presentation. In fact because blacks are pretty committed to ALWAYS voting Democrat, voting for Obama let's them feel like they are deviating from the norm and being adventurous with their vote, without actually deviating from the norm. The black version of a Republican voting independent.
In other words, I think Hillary and Obama attract the same types, but Hillary carries a lot of baggage in terms of likeability and issues of race just compound the problem.
Well Jasper, you seem very naive. Do you really believe the "shuck and jive" comment by one Clinton surrogate and the "Barak H- Obama" comment by another were just innocent mistakes?
While the Clintons themselves are very likely not racists they are not above cozying up to racists at times. So Bill Clinton said of segregationist J. William Fulbright "I admired him. I liked him."
I myself don't admire any segregationists. Do you? Indeed Clinton even called Fulbright his "mentor."
Governor Clinton also signed a law giving Robert E. Lee a state holiday and another marking "Confederate Flag Day." Again, Clinton is not a segregationist or a secessionist, but he is willing to pander to poor and prejudiced whites when doing so suits his electoral interests. And so is his wife.
So Alice Miles agrees with the views of a Clinton supporter. Who is she again, and why should she be considered any more credible than any other columnist?
Nothing about the Michigan Democratic Primary vote has any real validity, because everyone knew it was meaningless. Kudos to people who showed up and voted anyway, but without Obama and Edwards actually on the ballot you can't really conclude anything about the votes.
It's more accurate to say that Hillary only got 30% of the African-Americans who bothered to vote. Even so, she got 55% in what was basically a straw poll. Hardly bad news.
ROFL. Moe, you dedicate 90% of your post to attacking Bill Clinton, then try to link it to Hillary at the last minute. "Here's all the reasons Bill Clinton's a jerk. Oh yeah, and Hillary is his wife, so she's a jerk for all the same reasons." Too funny.
'I myself don't admire any segregationists. Do you? Indeed Clinton even called Fulbright his "mentor."' - rwe
I admire Washington and Jefferson. I guess they were not segregationists though. They just had some rather backward ideas about how some people should be integrated. Lincoln was a segregationist I think. I admire him too.
When it comes to judging people remember they are a product of their times. I really don't know that much about Fulbright. Maybe he was odious, maybe not. George Wallace was an awful man because he saw championing segregation as a means to personal power.
If Fulbright was not a senator, some other segregationist would be. If Wallace did not take up the mantle of a radical champion of segregation, it might be that no one would have filled his shoes, or at least not so well.
Someone check my numbers and math here:
-Blacks go almost all Democrat.
-Blacks are 30% of South Carolina.
-Therefore, blacks are 60% (!) of South Carolina's Democrat voters.
-Therefore, Hillary_Clinton doesn't have a chance there.
Person:
According to CNN's exit polling data, in 2004 South Carolina was 44% Republican and 33% Democrat, and African-American voters (who broke 85-15 for Kerry) were indeed 30% of the total electorate.
Your assumption is that African-Americans will overwhelmingly break for Obama (or Edwards), and I don't know that you can make that assumption.
The Clintons, neither of them, are respecters of people. Anyone who would do or say the things we know that the Clintons have done or said, are not respecters of persons. When Hillary Clinton makes civil rights claims, incidentally, she was 17 years old in 1964 - I for one doubt Hillary played any significant role – or even in subsequent years. Anyway, I look forward to the results of the citizens of the State of South Carolina putting the matter to rest: http://theseedsof9-11.com