The Moderate Voice - Latest Comments in Hillary’s Bittergate

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

SEO Updates — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 06:43:35 -0000

Moreover, according to a March 27 Gallup Poll, "those least likely to bolt the party and vote for McCain are blacks, liberal Democrats, and core Democrats." So it is arguable that an HRC supporter who would vote for McCain against nearly everything that HRC stands for, particularly at a time in our nation's history like this, is voting with their race far more doggedly than, say, a Black voter who would sooner vote for bright yellow towel than McCain.

Also, if Black people just vote on race, where was Alan Keyes' huge wave of support?

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

Web Design — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 07:10:23 -0000

I think US needed Obama to give a different signal and hope a symbol of change to the world after Bush's adament policies. Appointing Hillary as foreign sec. is a good step, Clinton himslef had relations with leaders and respective countries so may be Hillary can take his help to take some effective decisions.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

Sulumits Retsambew — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 06:53:44 -0000

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

pressdigital — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:49:37 -0000

It's ironic by just even posting on this, Joe reveals HE needs to get a life by even wasting precious minutes of his life on this topic. On the other hand, mw is out here doing his usual Republican apologist act. As mw effortlessly points out, a small slight against a deceased former President = the competence, intelligence.

Press Digital
Profile:- http://www.pressdigital.com.au

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

runasim — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:29:31 -0000

Lynx,

You're saying what I said from the beginning.

I can't find where the beef is.
Are we arguing about how much we agree? (hahaha)

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

runasim — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:27:45 -0000

:a biracial person is a member of two races."

Yeah, but he's going to be grouped with only one race. Guess which one.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

johnosahon — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:07:54 -0000

Fool, obama is also WHITE you dumb freak. like a typical brainless freak, a biracial person is a member of two races.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

janinedm — Thu, 08 May 2008 11:30:06 -0000

Also, if Black people just vote on race, where was Alan Keyes' huge wave of support?

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

Lynx — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:50:07 -0000

runasin, just to be clear, I agree that one has to be cautious when slicing people by race, since it does serve to reinforce racial divisions. However I think that the influence of race in these primaries cannot be denied, especially when one race is voting almost unanimously for the candidate of their same race. Another thought; people seem VERY uncomfortable talking about how disproportionally white people vote for Clinton, and what the origin of THAT could be, one of a long list of double standards in the US's twisted race issue.

Mikkel, thanks for the audio. Listening to it, it sounds like Clinton wanted to say "white, blue collar worker" but botched it badly. It doesn't sound like she's saying "hard working Americans" and then "white Americans" as a separate entity, but that the two are tied. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like she's trying to play race to me either, just name the demographic. She's certainly talking race, basically implying that Obama can't carry the whites, but I don't see the race card in the "hardworking" line, personally.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

janinedm — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:06:14 -0000

Hmm, second thought: Perhaps she was trying to find a non-elitist way to say less educated. I'd buy that.

The interesting thing is that this time last year, it looked as if Obama would have trouble with the African American vote, because the group was so loyal to the Clintons. In 1992, Bill lost the White vote across every demographic and it was the African American vote that put him over. The Lewinsky scandal (sorry to bring it up) never effected his support among African Americans in polls. And then he moved to Harlem... In short, we loved them as much as you could love any politician.

I think that the near unanimous voting is a form of censure. Gaffes that might might have been shrugged off as "eh, what do you expect" from another candidate are really hurting the Clintons because there is a perception that they should know better. To hear Bill or Hillary say completely clueless things, whether by mistake or on purpose, comes across as if the special relationship the Clintons seemed to have with the African American community was always a sham. As if they never really "got it."

So please, no one complained about the monolithic nature of the African American voting block when we turned out in greater number than we ever had before for Gore and Kerry (I believe Nader got less than one percent of the black vote in 2000). I understand that we're very excited to get back the people who voted for Bush twice, but I believe even (or especially) the Clintons would have some respect for loyalty.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

mikkel — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:53:29 -0000

I personally feel after hearing it that
a) white was a qualifier on hard working, and Lynx was right about that
b) she was very uncomfortable saying it, signifying that it is a crafted ploy that she was just throwing out there to see what would happen.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

runasim — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:52:12 -0000

Lynx,
Re: "runasin, the problem I have with your objection ..."

I wasn't objecting.so much as observing when I spoke about language in a general sense. Sometimes racial categories can't be ignored; sometimes it would be msileading to ignore them. I was pointing out the need for caution.
------------------------------------
Even speaking in terms of the white vote vs the black vote can be divisive, because it brings up the mental image of two separeate groups, one white and the other black.
So, the amount of time and emphasis spent reporting on these separate voting blocs has an impact.
I'm saying: don't avoid it, but be careful

When it comes to Hillary, I don't know for sure, what her intention was. As a politician dealing with all these voting demographics, I would expect her to, at least, be more careful in how she uses language. It's not like she's unaware of her black/white audience and how people react.

This is really a topic the media should address.
The PBS discussion was thoughtful, nunaced and iintelligent. No one claimed there was a simple answer.

I saw part of a disucssion at FOX, which was disgusting. They thought it was a joke. (I didn't see it in its entirety, though, so I may be off here.)

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

janinedm — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:41:00 -0000

I see what you're saying, Lynx, but she's only carrying the hard working whites. Perhaps the Latinos as well (Have you noticed they stopped parsing out that group as much? I know that the SW states have voted, but other states have Latinos). Who else could she mean?

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

MaryL — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:20:36 -0000

That still doesn't make sense, Lynx. Clinton's entire statement is about white, working class voters. I don't see why she would suddenly digress and start talking about all kinds of hard working Americans in the middle of her talk about the white working class.

If we are taking her words literally -- and I can still see this as a tic or a genuine case of misspeaking, so I doubt that this was her intent -- she's assigning a desirable characteristic to this bloc of voters, while Obama has never sliced and diced his supporters demographically and then praised one subset, implicitly criticizing all those outside that group. And neither has Clinton, up until now.

It's a gaffe. She has started talking about race and class very clumsily, and it's not a good idea.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

mikkel — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:16:09 -0000

If you look at the exit polls, it's clear that Obama doesn't have a problem winning "white" voters, as he trounces her in the under 30 set and gets very close in the 30-45 group, while losing by quite a bit in the 45-60 and getting demolished in the 60+. He has an older white problem.

I have a suspicion that the older groups tend to vote the most straight ticket as well (does any one know if this is true) and being weak in that group would actually hurt him less than Hillary being weak in the under 45 group.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

Lynx — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:42:28 -0000

runasin, the problem I have with your objection is that though I agree that language can create assumptions (it's true about how blacks are assumed only to be black, not young, old, college student or blue collar) the fact is that they are treated as a bloc because they are voting as a bloc. North Carolina blacks went OVER 90% for Obama. Sure you could ignore race distinctions and separate them by class, or income, or education in a color-blind fashion, but you'd be hiding a very relevant number. Blacks are many things other than black, like any other race, but no other race is voting so unanimously for one single candidate.

Lynx, I don't think disentangling "hard working" from her statement makes much sense. What kind of polling has been done showing that Clinton appeals to the hard-working and Obama appeals to the lazy?

You are mistakenly assuming that the statement has to be true to make sense. Obama often says that his supporters want a new direction for America, I could as easily ask if he's saying that Clinton's supporters want the same thing we've been fed for the past 8 years.

It doesn't even need to be read as an insult to the other side. "My supporters are good people, hard working people" doesn't mean that my opponents people are awful and lazy people.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

AustinRoth — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:56:11 -0000

I think the underlying point she is trying to make is that the Democratic nominee (even if it is her) will capture the vast majority of the black vote no matter what (because that is what the last 30+ years tell her).

So, in her mind, the best candidate is the one that can get the other types of votes out there. There is a logic in the argument, but it ignores the Hillery factor, i.e., the number of people who for various reasons will never vote for her, personally, in the general election.

And I think she is ignoring how much the overall black vote would self-suppress (as compared to voting Republican) as a reaction to her getting the nomination over Obama.

In the end, IMO, Obama will not be a shoo-in in the general election, but I cannot see how after how the way the Democratic primaries have played out, Clinton could possibly win the general election anymore.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

MaryL — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:44:15 -0000

Lynx, I don't think disentangling "hard working" from her statement makes much sense. What kind of polling has been done showing that Clinton appeals to the hard-working and Obama appeals to the lazy?

I think it could have just been a verbal tic left over from her populist posturing over the past couple of weeks, and I don't think she's racist, but I do find the fact that she's brought up some racially-related stats of debatable relevance to the general in such a clumsy way to be very worrisome. I want her to keep campaigning to the end of the primaries, but not like this.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

runasim — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:22:23 -0000

Very interesting post!

It comes on the heels of a PBS discussion concerning race in these primariies. The point was made (and I agree) that news coverage both legitimately reports about and simultaneously increases the race component in politics, often in subtle ways.
Blue collar workers have become too closely identified as WHITE blue collar workers; it's almost a code.. The 'black vote' implies that all blacks vote
the same way. The impresion is left that the lunch box crowd, soccer moms, college kids, college grads and so forth are all mutually exclusive groups.. That leaves the 'black vote' as a separate group of its own, with no distintinguishing features, or the worst imaginings of the consumer

Elrod expressed the possible explanations for Hillary's use of language this way very astutely.
>Thank you for being cautious about jumping to conclusions, Elrod. <

A third possiblity occured to me: that she sincerely believes that the issue of race will be the straw that breaks the back of Dem chances in Nov., and that's why she's clinging on.
Especially after the Wright flap, I do hink race will be a major worry in Nov.

Whatever the case, I believe Hillary has made the wrong decision on this one. I believe that whatever votes she gains this way, will cost her more votes in other ways.
More importantly, she keeps feeding McCain talking points!
How can she appear to be united with Obama in Nov after this?

It's not good for her. It's not good for the Dems. It's just not good.
.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

Lynx — Thu, 08 May 2008 06:25:00 -0000

I think cadence and tone are essential in this analysis Elrod. I'm no Hillary fan, but I'm not ready to condemn this without the audio. I know it sounds like parsing, but there is a difference between making a comment that puts hard working Americans and white Americans together and apart. My point is that she could as well have been ENUMERATING people who support her;
1. Hard working Americans
2. White Americans

OR she could have been using white Americans as a descriptor for hard working Americans, which is of course unacceptable. It's a fine line, and the only way you could posibly distinguish it would be by going to the audio, which is what I think needs to be done in this case.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

StockBoySF — Thu, 08 May 2008 05:58:16 -0000

Well, Hillary can't very well say that she appeals to hard working black voters because she doesn't.

We all know that Hillary's campaign is sinking and she will work every possible angle to stay in the race. I believe her comments were meant to point out the fact that she can carry this important demographic. That demographic is hard working, white working class voters. I don't know how else to describe them. Perhaps she could have said, "Americans of European ancestry, many of whom do not have a college education, who toil to put food on their family's table." :) Nah.... That sounds elitist....

I don't think she is saying that white people's votes should count more than black people's votes... the one demographic she can win is probably larger than the black vote... it's a political reality and one doesn't win elections by trying to appeal to 35% of the voters. One wins elections by appealing to 50% plus 1.

There was an excellent post on here yesterday about how Hillary lost because she didn't appeal to the black vote. That's her real problem. She's left with support from a less than 50% demographic while alienating other blocks of voters (such as blacks) that she needs to win. In other words, while I don't think she was being racist with the comment this post is about, her comment shows where her priorities are (and it will cost her the nomination). Furthermore I can definitely see how many folks can believe it is a racist comment. So I tend to agree with elrod and RickTaylor (as to how some people might interpret her comments), but with my added layer.

I believe her real message is that she can carry all traditional Democratic demographics if Obama was out of the race, but Obama can not carry all these traditional Democratic demographics.

Bottom line is that she's grasping at straws to stay afloat and the straws in her hands are too small to carry her. She needs a nice big log to carry her, which she won't get unless Obama somehow manages to crash and burn.

Re: Hillary’s Bittergate

RickTaylor — Thu, 08 May 2008 03:40:05 -0000

It's not the "hard working" part comment that bothers me. I'm sure she feels black working class people work hard to. What bothers me is she's presumably making an argument as to why the super-delegates should over-ride the pledged delegate count and the popular vote and select her as the nominee. And no matter how I slice it, she seems to be saying that white peoples' votes ought to count more than black peoples' votes. They should select her, because white-working class voters are a key demographic the Democratic party needs. Evidently, black-working class voters are not so essential (otherwise her argument falls apart). So the super-delegates have to intervene, because the votes of black voters shouldn't count as much as the votes of white voters.

Anyway, my conclusion is the same as yours.