In another bad sign for Hillary Clinton's sinking campaign, the blogosphere -- and the mainstream media -- is all over her racially divisive comments to USA Today about her white support (read alvernon90's diary), and the verdict is not good. The broad consensus is that Hillary's comments are clearly deepening rifts in the Democratic party and hurting the party's chances in the fall. Are you listening superdelegates?
- davidkc's diary :: ::
Kate Phillips at the New York Times Caucus blog (under the headline "Hillary Touts White Support") notes that Hillary's latest race-baiting comments come on the heels of the tense exchange between Donna Brazile and Paul Begala on Tuesday night:
As if the divisions between race and gender in the Democratic Party hadn’t been further exposed through Tuesday night’s exit polls — and by a very heated exchange on CNN between high-profile Dems Donna Brazile and Paul Begala, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s interview with USA Today on Wednesday is further mining those tense depths.
Ben Smith at Politico is suspicious of the timing of Hillary's "white Americans" comment, and surprised by how upfront Hillary is becoming with her racially divisive ways:
Now, the press has talked about the race in these terms constantly, so I won't feign shock. But it's a bit strange to hear it so bluntly from the candidate's mouth, and probably not a great way to endear herself to African-American voters.
And it's also noteworthy that the blunt talk on appealing to whites surfaces the day after the last round of primaries in which there's a substantial number of black voters.
Translation: Hillary's comments were carefully orchestrated.
And Chuck Todd over at MSNBC First Read clearly understands the problem that Hillary is causing for the Democratic party, and shares some stern words for Hillary from Chris Dodd:
It's comments like that one that might drive more supers toward Obama pretty quickly. Why? Because they know the math, but they don't want her to spend three weeks making a case that Obama can't win. It will only weaken him. Here’s what Obama backer Chris Dodd said yesterday, per NBC’s Ken Strickland. "You're going to be asking a bunch of people [in West Virginia] to vote against somebody who's likely to be your nominee a few weeks later? And turn around and ask the very same people a few weeks later to reverse themselves and now vote for [Obama] on election day?"
Right on Senator Dodd.
Superdelegates, I have a question for you. If you are truly concerned about party unity, then are you comfortable with headlines like "Hillary Boasts of White Voter Support" and "Clinton's 'white Americans'" coming right after the party's presidential nominee has been decided? If you aren't concerned, then God help the Democratic party.
UPDATE:
On a related note, I'd like to give a well-deserved shout-out to Rachel Maddow. On MSNBC's post-election coverage on Tuesday night, all the male commentators were gushing, some with their eyes welling up, over Hillary's election night speech, calling it "whistful" and saying she was clearly going to end her campaign with "grace" and "dignity." But Maddow said she heard something completely different in Hillary's speech, and predicted that Clinton would continue her scorched-earth strategy. Maddow was roundly pooh-poohed by all the commentators, including KO, but it turns out, sadly, that she was spot on. It is beyond too late for Hillary to end her campaign with grace and dignity. "Sad" and "pathetic" is the best she can hope for now.
Here's a link to Rachel's prophetic comments, which are about 5 minutes into the clip. But it's worth hearing the other comments that precede hers.
UPDATE 2:
More reactions to Hillary's latest race-baiting comments:
From Jack and Jill Politics, a leading African American political blog:
Apparently not satisfied with her plummeting approval ratings among black voters, Hillary Clinton decided to remind us again that our votes don't actually count...
This kind of comment is less a description than an agitator, it's meant to give white voters the impression that they would be "disenfranchised" by an Obama win. It's a not so subtle effort to evoke racial resentment over Obama's success...
That's what the "elitist" charge has always been about, appealing to the sentiment that "this black guy thinks he's better than you." It will be the same against the Republicans. The difference is that they now have Democrat saying the same things to further legitimize this line of "argument".
And from Mike Barnicle over at Huffington Post:
Now, faced with a mathematical mountain climb that even Stephen Hawking could not ascend, the Clintons -- and it is indeed both of them -- are just about to paste a bumper sticker on the rear of the collapsing vehicle that carries her campaign. It reads: VOTE WHITE.
That's the underlying message propping up a failed candidate. Check it out, you superdelegates: the buttoned down black guy is having trouble with blue collar white guys so cast your vote with the white chick who has transformed herself into an arm-wrestling, shot and a beer, kitchen table advocate for the working class and now it's on to West Virginia and Kentucky where she'll prove it.
So, after all the years they have been with us, after all the triumph and tastelessness, the accomplishments and embarrassments, we're about to watch them act out an updated, mixed gender re-make of Thelma and Louise with Bill behind the wheel, the two of them sharing a knowing look, a wink, in the front seat as they take the Democrat (sic) party right off the cliff, the whole thing crashing and burning in a racial divide both he and she sought to heal all those years ago in Little Rock and then Washington.
Barnicle ends by noting that Hillary is "on the edge of writing a truly ugly chapter for all to see." Mike, she's not on the edge of writing that chapter. The chapter has been written and is at the publisher.
UPDATE 3:
Pam Spaulding over at Pam's House Blend points out how Hillary's message was very carefully crafted, honed and targeted, and that Hillary has clearly decided to throw all subtlety out the window in her latest attempts to use race and race-baiting as a political tool -- a sure sign of the desperate last throes of her campaign: "White dog whistles no more":
You see the problem and beauty of Senator Clinton's statement is that it boldly embraces the undiscussed fear in this Reagan Democrat demographic, the people who do consider race a major factor -- concern that white privilege is being threatened, that somehow Barack Obama as president would exact retribution against "hard working white Americans" for past or present institutionalized racism...
The frame is specific -- that's why Clinton referred to hard working white Americans. What happened to "blue collar Americans?" Oh wait, there are a lot of hard working black and brown blue collar/working class Americans, and many of them they voted for Obama, so she had to slice that demo down to the bottom line. Dog whistles no more.
UPDATE 4:
The mainstream media is also joining in the growing criticism of Hillary Clinton for her racially divisive comments.
In an editorial for its Friday edition, the New York Times weighs in on this controversy and has some harsh words for Hillary. Perhaps the paper is trying to redeem itself for endorsing Clinton:
But we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan...
We endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and we know that she has a major contribution to make. But instead of discussing her strong ideas, Mrs. Clinton claimed in an interview with USA Today that she would be the better nominee because a recent poll showed that "Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again." She added: "There’s a pattern emerging here."
Yes, there is a pattern — a familiar and unpleasant one. It is up to Mrs. Clinton to change it if she hopes to have any shot at winning the nomination or preserving her integrity and her influence if she loses.
The Times editorial also noted that Hillary owes it to the people of New York to "return to the Senate with her influence and integrity intact." Fat chance of that. By the way, the Times is welcoming comments to this editorial, so you might want to hop over there and share your two cents.
Over at the Washington Post, the always-great Eugene Robinson shares his views on "The Card Clinton Is Playing":
Let's examine those premises. These are white Democrats we're talking about, voters who generally share the party's philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist.
The other notion -- that Clinton could position herself as some kind of Great White Hope and still expect African American voters to give her their enthusiastic support in the fall -- is just nuts. Obama has already won a majority of the Democratic primary contests; within a couple of weeks, he almost certainly will have won a majority of the pledged convention delegates and will be assured of finishing with more of the popular vote. Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, "Nice job, kid, but we can't give you the nomination because, well, you're black. White people might not like that."...
"It's still early," Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment