Democratic Underground - sorry, that was probably a lot of information at once.

Senator Clinton did not suggest that the whites who are voting for Barack Obama are undesirable or of the wrong religion.

Undesirable as in not desirable, per "I <, Hillary> have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on" (although "broad" in this sense curiously means the narrowest slice of "white Americans" that can be said to be reliably pro-Clinton this week). I wrote "perhaps" the wrong religion, since Hillary's "clumsy" (ambiguous? unintentionally truthful?) door #2 would encompass all non-hardworking white Americans, which leads any observer to wonder which varieties of American she had in mind:

Longtime Democratic operative Bob Shrum, who led John Kerry's unsuccessful 2004 presidential campaign, said that party leaders -- including convention superdelegates -- fear that Clinton may be adopting a strategy that unnecessarily fuels antagonisms within party ranks.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/hillary-clint-8.html

Probably not a great sign when Shrum and Sen. Feinstein are tiptoeing out of the chamber. By the most charitable interpretation, #2 isn't remotely truthful, which confers further doubt on the "clumsiness" of this ambiguity:

The comments have ignited a furor similar to that which erupted after Clinton's husband, former president Bill Clinton, compared Obama's success in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential run. Then, as now, the data show something different.

The network exit polls show Clinton winning whites without college degrees in both Indiana and North Carolina by wide margins, but without evident slippage for Obama. And Clinton's margin among this group in Indiana (where they made up more than half of all voters) was 10 points smaller than it was in Pennsylvania.

Among whites overall, there is also little evidence of weakening support for Obama: His share of the vote in Indiana and North Carolina was about the same as in Pennsylvania. And regardless of the divide in the primaries, white voters are a challenge for Democrats in general elections. In 2004, Bush defeated Kerry among whites by 17 points, and in 2000, he beat Gore by 24 points among whites.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/05/clintons_broader_base.html

So we're left with:

The offensive part of Clinton's quote -- "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" -- isn't that Clinton is saying white Americans won't support Obama. It's that she's conflating hard-working Americans with white Americans, as if non-white Americans don't work hard also.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/08/clinton-s-comments-not-all-white.aspx

Well, I defy anyone who participated in yesterday's debate to deny that Clinton's recent race-baiting is harming her party and, if not poisoning the entire race, then at least bringing the level of debate down to an unfortunate level.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/05/08/marni-soupcoff-on-hillary-clinton-s-race-baiting-yeah-that-s-going-to-help-the-party.aspx

USA Today described these as “blunt remarks about race.” When a candidate equates “hard-working Americans” with “white Americans,” I can’t help but wonder if “blunt” is a strong enough adjective.
<...>
By the logic of Clinton’s argument, we should also note that her support among African Americans is quite poor, and the “pattern” is pretty clear. Are we to assume that if she were the nominee, those same voters would back McCain over her? That Clinton couldn’t possibly win because she’d never get the support of African-American Dems? Of course not.

Why, then, characterize the race in this illogical, race-based way?

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15470.html

Reply #135: sorry, that was probably a lot of information at once. [View All]