Are the Clintons playing Dixiecrat and "Ethnic White Backlash" politics? [View All]

Before Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, thousands of African-Americans were Republicans, because because Southern Democrats did not want them in "their" party, appeals to ethnic white "backlash" against Civil Rights were common in Northeastern and Midwestern Democratic politics, there were almost no white Republicans in the South, and Republicans elsewhere sought "left cover" from the tiny minority of nonwhites in their ranks.

In the early 1960s, "Dixiecrats" had been mobilized for decades as one of the biggest power blocs within the Democratic Party. Later in the decade, today's Democratic Coalition begin to take shape, and with Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", Southern white flight to the Republicans accelerated and ultimately became almost complete.

Are the Clintons trying to build another White Power bloc in the Party, perhaps reattracting some Southern white racialists to the Democratic side, and to diminish the power of African-American Democratic voters in the South and in Blue States?

Hillary Clinton's White House strategy since she went negative, then BALLISTIC starting in March, seems to me to have 3 objectives:

(1) Polarize the Democratic party racially.
(2) Become the spokesperson for white backlash.
(3) Poison Obama's chances in November by denying him the white backlash vote she stirred up.

Below are some thoughts and some links that have influenced my thinking.

What do you think?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Polarize the Democratic Party racially, endangering the strong Black-Feminist-Hispanic-Labor coalition that has been the base of the Party since the 1960s. See HRC's interview in yesterday's USA Today at http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm , and her chief strategist Geoff Garin (see below) on how Hil's and Bill's racialized language has driven down Obama's support among southern whites from 52 percent in Virgina ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#VADEM ) to 37 percent in North Carolina this week ( http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#NCDEM ).

2. Become the sole spokesperson for a bloc of downscale white Democrats, in the South and in pockets of "ethnic white backlash" in Northeastern/ Midwestern/Blue states, who would bolt the Democratic Party for John McCain if Obama were nominated. Hillary has endeavored mightily to conflate her racial polarization efforts with efforts to seat rulebreaking delegates from a name-recognition no-campaigning farce in Florida and a Soviet-style one-candidate "election" in Michigan.

3. Poison Obama's chances in November by denying him the "white backlash" vote she has stirred up. Despite her "Yes Yes Yes" debate response in Philadelphia to a question about Obama's electability, Hillary seems determined to whisper to Superdelegates until Denver that Obama CANNOT win in November, thanks in large part to the racial hornet's nest she and Bill have broken open within the Party, using "dog-whistle" polarization tactics since South Carolina ("Fairy tale", "elitist"="uppity").

At the Convention in August, presumable Hillary will voice her "concerns" about the elctability of an African-American openly.

Even if, as I believe is probable, her strategy does not work in Denver, and Obama becomes the nominee for 2008, Hil's and Bill's calendar for a Clinton White House dynasty may simply be set back four years to 2012. After the Clintons have denied another Democrat the chance to supplant the Bush Dynasty, I believe they would simply commence their 2012 Clinton WH Restoration campaign in November.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/05/hillary_chief_strategist_north.php ;

'Hillary Chief Strategist: North Carolina Loss Represented Progress Because We Won Among White Voters

By Greg Sargent - May 7, 2008, 11:15AM

On the Hillary conference call, Hillary chief strategist Geoff Garin made the case for her electability in some of the most explicitly race-based terms I've heard yet.

Garin argued that the North Carolina contest, which Obama won by 14 points, represented "progress" for Hillary because she did better among white voters there than she did in Virginia. "When we began in North Carolina," Garin said, "our internal polling and much of the public polling we were running exactly even with white voters." Garin said that the Virginia electorate was the "closest white electorate in the country" to North Carolina, and added that Hillary "started even" among whites in North Carolina, and "ended up earning a significant win of 24 points." ...

Put in the context of the Hillary campaign's chief argument that she's the more electable Dem, Garin's overall implication here is that her success among white voters in North Carolina yesterday is "progress" in the sense that it strengthens her case for electability.

In other words, it's an explicit, and unabashed, linking of her claim of electability to her success among whites.'