On the positive side, I don't think it matters any more at this point.  The more she spins - with Lying Davis and that cow whose name I don't recall being her spokespersons - the more ridiculous she sounds.  And now, openly discussing what Rendell said, this has got to put a nail into her well-deserved electoral coffin.

I call "macaca."

But surely the point here is not the outright appeal to open race bigotry that it appears at first glance to be. No, Hillary has learned the Helmsian lesson better than that. The point is to say something that's clearly an appeal to naked race bigotry but that falls short of using the n-word, and thereby to egg the respectable establishment, both political and media, into calling "race!" on her. Then she becomes the victim of the PC race-coddlers and the lefty elites who take offense when you "tell it like it is." It's all about creating a sympathetic backlash. That's how you activate white racial solidarity these days, and since Iowa Hillary has been playing this trick again and again. It's reprehensible, and it's why I will not be a member of any political party that would nominate Hillary for president.

Let's not forget that Hillary has been running a barely below the radar voter-suppression campaign in black neighborhoods in primaries going back to February using an "independent group" that has only narrowly avoided criminal indictment in several states. Hillary's campaign has engaged in more open race politics than I have seen from any Republican campaign since the 1980s. It's a pattern, and it's as close to an act of actual evil as any presidential candidate has committed in a long time. Beyond shameful.

Yawn. Let it go. Let her go. Please.

According to CNN's analysis, the Indiana exit polls showed Obama *gaining* support among white working class voters since Pennsylvania, as well as among all other white groups except that of voters over 65. She is unbelievable. Plus, her phrasing implies that the only Americans who are hard working are those who support her (i.e. non-college educated, white, working class Americans.) Like the rest of Americans sit around in their cubicle farms twiddling their thumbs?

The implications of her intentional juxtaposition of "hard-working Americans" and "white Americans" are, um...

Sorry, words fail me.

Except to say that, if a Republican made such remarks, he or she would be impaled on the nearest flag-flying flagpole, then accused of desecrating the flag. As would Obama if he stated that North Carolina showed that "Senator Clinton's support among working, hard-working Americans, black Americans, is weakening again..." which, as a matter of fact, it did.

In the words of Oliver Cromwell to the Long Parliament, and Leo Amery to Neville Chamberlain in May 1940:

"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go."

Her remarks are unifying in the Hatfield and McCoy sense of unity. I thought to myself: Jonathan Cohn's hopes of incipient civility on the part of the Hillmeister are going to be dashed.

Meanwhile, where are the superdelegates who remain "uncommitted"? And where are the party's so-called "leaders" who sit on the sidelines clutching their purses and smiling wanly?

People say antipathy toward Obama from working-class whites is a problem. I say the party's dearth of gonads is a problem.

If this woman **DARES** to pull the "America won't elect a black man" line, after a **CAREER** of piously bragging about her civil rights bona fides, I will have truly seen everything.

Mcorey,geo: I will have seen everything as well, if this transpires. Williamyard: Gonads are in short supply among the Democratic Party leadership. I think it's a requirement or something.

"The article describess the "remarks about race" as "blunt." Regardless, this does not seem to be a "unifying" statement."   Isaac Chotiner

The party is divided, Isaac. Why should she lie about it?

On the plus side, apparently she's not angling for the VP slot.

Yard, you hit that one right on the head.

Jackson: we agree.  The Party is divided.  The thing is, Mrs. Clinton, by her statement, is actively seeking to rend it apart.  And now, surely, you cannot disagree with the basic diagnosis of the pathology of her campaign: say anything and so anything to win.  Surely, with this statement, she put the lie to the protestations of her phlandering husband that he had been maligned in SC.

One is reminded of Joseph Welch's rebuke: "have you no sense of decency, Madam?  At long last, have you no sense of decency?"

WY: well, Carville knows that Hillary has three balls ... perhaps she has emasculated the rest to get her own ...

She is nuts. And what goads her into her nuttiest outbursts are speculations that she is conceding -remember how the day after that debate when she said she was proud to have run against Obama - and everyone said awwww, what a gracious concession, how heartwarming. I knew better! I told you so! I knew it would goad her, and then she bellowed "shame on you, Obama!" with thrusting arm and finger. Ha ha ha ha ha !!! Tastelessness parading itself before the slackjawed horror of millions. A teaching moment! Ha!

How much more "blunt" could Hillary be? "Obama's support among working, hard-working, white Americans is weakening again?" Holy crap! Even John McCain only says things like that in dirty, dirty dreams that he doesn't share with his therapist.

Somebody ought to call Hillary Clinton a racist. But it's not going to be Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or Fox News -- not enough unemployed, lazy blacks in their demographics. So who's it going to be? Are these "remarks about race" best "described" by USA Today as "blunt?" Are they positively not "unifying?" Or... might we simply describe them as crude racial pandering?

Enough with the delicacy! Hillary is running a three-ring circus of crazy, and it's not necessary to speak in hushed tones. Just say it with me: "Hillary is trying racism in a last-ditch attempt to scare Democratic superdelegates away from Obama." Just saying this won't turn you into "The Nation." You can be... like... "The New York Times With Jon Stewart!" It'll be awesome.

Yeah, this whole line of Clinton's is beyond the pale.  Leave aside the association of "white Americans" with "working Americans" and the ugly implication that black Americans don't work.  I'm almost willing to give her the benefit of the doubt and allow that she might merely have been doing an on-the-fly variation on "white, working-class Americans" which is, after all, her core demographic and that she missed the nasty resonances until it was too late.  BUT even if you cut her some slack on this most glaringly racist formulation, her whole argument reeks.  She's as much as said, "In the broader sphere outside the Democratic Party, nobody gives a shit what black people think.  This is a white (wo)man's country.  Nominate me.  I'm white."  

I take back all the crap I've written here in the past 24 hours about how Clinton's staying in just to keep the fund raising ball rolling and try to cover as much of her campaign debt as she can, how she knows she's lost, and she'll play nice from here on out.  I've changed my mind: Hillary Clinton is batshit crazy.

I just looked up the Census data on New York state.  The population is 17.4% black.  That probably puts blacks share of the statewide Democratic electorate in the range of 25%.  If Clinton honestly has dreams of moving upstate to Albany, I reckon she can kiss them goodbye, and it wouldn't surprise me at all to see a primary challenger emerge for her 2012 reelection campaign--that's assuming she even runs for reelection and isn't devoting herself to challenging an incumbent Obama for the presidential nod.  

It'll be very interesting to see what Charlie Rangel does over the next couple of weeks, to see whether he withdraws his Clinton endorsement.  The NY Observer reported on Feb 1 that Rangel's wife, Alma, has publicly endorsed Obama.

I am shocked, shocked to discover at this late date that all along Hillary Clinton has always been a cynical, race-baiting hypocrite and opportunist, liar and panderer, who cares not a whit for the fortunes of the Democratic party, who is entirely self-serving and devoted to nothing more than her own pathetic ambition finally to be important because she has pretty much accomplished nothing noteworthy with her "35 years of experience" and her resume thick enough to choke a gnat.

Shocked!

I do recall saying, however, that the upside of Hillary staying in the race is that by the time the convention comes around all good Democrats will be repelled by her, there will be no buyers' remorse, and it will be easier for the party to come together and move on.  And she does get about that work quickly, doesn't she?

roid, you ready to put your hand up for a Senate run in 2012?

aeromonas,

That's very kind, but I am WAAAAAAAY too far down in the pecking order for that to be more plausible than, say, Robert Mugabe running for the senate in NY.  But I will be happy to work for Hillary's defeat.  I have been pondering the question of just who can do the job.

By the way, I do not think for a second that Hillary will run for governor.  Albany is not the stage she wants and she is not going to run against Patterson, particularly in light of this campaign.  She would be openly and thoroughly trashed as a racist.

The best that Clinton could claim about this is that the juxtaposition of "hard-working Americans" and "white Americans" was a rhetorical mistake and not a deliberate attempt to equate the two.  As aeromonas points out, though, her argument is still ridiculous even under this interpretation.

What are the assumptions that go into her "I have a broader coalition" argument?  Certainly, within the group of people who vote in Democratic primaries, her coalition is not broader; if it were, she'd be winning.  So for her "broader coalition" argument to work, you need to assume that the people who don't vote in Democratic primaries have similar preferences to their demographic counterparts who do, and moreover that a general election would simply be a referendum on the Democrat.  Thus since there are more white working class voters than black/latte liberal voters in the general election, she has a broader coalition.  The problem is that both of these assumptions are wrong.  The people that don't vote in Democratic primaries have clearly different preferences from those who do, and the election will be about the Democrat as compared with McCain.

Aside from the the dubious nature of the argument behind it, the remark is either a remarkable display of tone-deafness or, as Rhubarbs suggests, a devious attempt to provoke sympathetic backlash when she gets called out.  Based on the campaign so far, I'm betting on the former.

Well Isaac.  You've given everyone at TNR another opportunity to return to the Clinton-bashing narrative they have long sustained.  I had hoped we could move beyond this.  Let it go, people.  If you think she's so pathetic, just ignore her.  She said nothing about African-Americans in her comments.  Consider that if we don't infer a connection between "hardworking" and "whites" beyond the literal, then one won't exist.  If you make the connection, the interpretation, it becomes a possibility.  I don't make such connections.  I don't  dignify such possibilities.

Text from the USAToday article:  "Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton's comment was a "poorly worded" variation on the way analysts have been "slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms."

So her comments are poorly worded repeat of the analysts' claims.  They are much more about her trying to make her case, the one we know is rather weak.  In fact the entire article is about what her case is to remain in the race.  It's subject is not about playing a race card.  Again, let it go.  The over-analyzing is counterproductive.  

The bookies' latest odds for HRC or 7 to 1.  I wonder if she is so certain of winning that she's taken a portion of the family savings to Vegas. That makes more sense than loaning $11 million to the campaign.  Then again, I don't know what interest rate they negotiated.  

Do we know if the details of that transaction were written on something larger than a napkin? Maybe it wasn't cash money and they cut a deal for a weeks worth of lecturers from Mr. Bill.

[Priceless]

You know, every so often, I ask myself if maybe my perception that the CLinton's were race-baiting wasn't really an ungenerous reading. Maybe I should take them at their word.

And then again, i am reminded -- they are morally corrupt.

Psant, yard, both dead on (as usual for both of you!)

Tammy - assuming you're right, here's the thing.  Clinton has been staying in the race, at least according to some analysts, waiting for Obama to "implode", or for him to have his own Macaca moment.  She did not hesitate to exploit Obama's "bitter" statement - leaving aside for the moment whether he was correct in his observations or whether they were a poor choice of words - and sought to milk it to engender more resentment and sow more division in the Party and in the electorate.

Well, now she is having her own Macaca moment, as Rhubs put it; the problem is, what she is doing is not an implosion but an explosion - to harp on the "white" vote at this point, having almost lost Indiana, is to try to broader the smash wide open the existing cleavages, as if she ain't gonna go down without causing everything around her to go up in flames.  Analysts may be slicing and dicing; Karl Rove and Mark Penn may slice and dice; but at this late stage of the game, ought she to be slicing and dicing still?  Ought she continue on this destructive path?

Finally, there is no over analysis here.  Poor wording of even the most wholesome message can wreck careers, and this message ain't wholesome.  By pressing ahead, and by pressing ahead on this line of attack, Hillary is ensuring that there will be no compromise, no negotiated settlement.  After this, unless she apologises - and she is not the apologising type - I can't see Obama paying her debts, or Obama's supporters wanting her within a mile of any federal office within the power of the President.  This is not good for anyone, and it cannot be fixed simply by letting it go.

Icar.  I don't see this issue being carried currently by any other news outlet.  In fact, the lead articles at Politico, ABC, CBS are about the new polite tone, Clinton's impending exit, and what Obama is doing to move toward the general.  Let's hope it stays that way.  It's in our best interest.  She has not offended Obama with the comments.  That, my friend, is a real stretch.  

I can't let this one go by, tammy.  If you reread my and AlanSP's posts, you'll see that both of us allowed for the possibility that the "white" and "working" juxtaposition was inadvertent.  But you did not answer our concerns about the deeper problem about this and other statements like it that Clinton has made, namely the clear, unavoidable implication that Obama's (majority) coalition is somehow less valid than Clinton's (minority) coalition because his happens to be formed around a core of very enthusiastic black support.  

If Clinton says that she cannot see the problem with this. then she's either calculating or stupid or, in a third possibility that sort of blends these two qualities, nuts.

And yes, Clinton made no mention of black people in her comment.  But, you know, when you single a group of people out for praise--they're hard working, they're American, and of course, they voted for Hillary Clinton--and in the same breath describe them not once, but twice as "white," it sort of implies that you're setting them off against people who are "not white," which in the context of a single "not white" group throwing its overwhelming support to Obama, pretty clearly means "black."

Lets look at the facts Republicans in Operation chaos voted for her in Ohio and PA. They did the same in NC and Indidana in Ohio and PA Obama lost by 10 points in NC he won by 15 in Indiana he lost by 2 points. So if Hilary has this broad coalition of support why can't she close the deal explain it to me. Why is she FURTHER behind now than she was when she won Ohio. Shouldnt questions like this be posed to HIlary. If the Bubba's are racist as she is implying what makes her think that when they get into that booth in November their sexism wont come out and they vote for McCain cause they dont think a woman with multiple personalities should be put in charge. What makes her tink that she doesnt have disadvantages. I guess gender becomes a problem for her when the media is attacking her and ignoring Obama its because she is a woman but when it coems to the general election gender won't be a problem then.

It is my sincere hope that after the way she behaved in this primary her political career is damaged permanently because of it.

Carol

I'm also inclined to view this as a case of "poor wording".  How many times has she been saying "values of hard-working Americans" on the stump every day?  At this point she'd probably go into a McDonalds and say "Hello, hard-working American, I'd lika a cheeseburger strong American values meal with a diet Coke."  

But unlike some of Obama's poor-wording incidents, e.g. "typical white person" or "bitter Pensylvanians", here Clinton has voluntarily walked into this particular rhetorical minefield.  Her electability arguments have been shaded up to "bigots won't vote for Obama."  So I have less sympathy for her failure to choose her words carefully.

jacksondyer

You're right, She shouldn't lie.

But since she's willing to be "honest" someone should be honest enough to ask her to explain how given that divide, she plans on winning say ...Maryland, after spending the last four months insulting the voters who'd need to deliver the state,

For me its been a question of the one sidedness of this discussion that's been frustrating and infuriating. I mean shouldn't there be some honest assessment of their respective chances of making nice with their opponent's demographic?  

Beyond what everyone said her: how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.

Is ludicrous. Aren't we supposed to live in a country where education is valued and respected? More importantly haven't we as Democrats always put a premium on education trying to ensure the maximum of people get it regardless of economic background.

I hate to say it but I am kind of proud that I was one of the first to recognize just how much of an asshole Hillary Clinton is, and what a pleasure it has been this past year to watch more and more people here at TNR come to agree. I never even needed to try to persuade people of her assholeness, she has always been so happy to demonstrate it.

tammya, I long ago acknowledged that Obama made a big gaffe with his cringe comments (which were done to a private audience) and I acknowledge it was condescending of him to do so, that he shouldn't make sociological observations (even though I agree with what he said). But Hillary has said these things on the record time and again as her justification for staying in the race.

Her whole justification is that her white working class vote is worth proportionally more than Obama's multi-racial one. It is not even a question that she carries the swing vote (that is a legit. claim, however Obama carries more of the swing vote), no, this simply has no justification beyond her justifying to herself he own evil ambition.

Carol it is, people are being polite to her because they are afraid that she will go batshit crazy and take the party down with her, after November she will be treated like the crazy old aunt that is tolerated at family functions, except by the Republicans, who will be all lovey-dovey to her out of pure amusement. Hillary will take this all as evidence of the new VLWC.

Poor wording, my ass.  What she said was, "Other than the educated elite, whites won't vote for a black man, so choose me, I'm white."  It's what she meant and it is what she said.

Tammy: for the sake of the Party and for the November elections, and in small measure for her own sake (I still admire what she was), I hope you are right.  

Blackie: did you hear Begala talking about "eggheads and African-Americans"?  WTF?  

Roid, this from NYT.  Priceless: 'In West Virginia on Wednesday afternoon, Mrs. Clinton said that it was “still early” — even though 50 of 56 nominating contests have concluded — and that the “dynamic electoral environment” could still swing the nomination her way.'

Crazy aunt about sums it up.

If this comment doesn't convince liberal white women that she is not worthy of their support there is a major, probably fatal, problem for Democrats going forward. Most of her female support is with the educated progressives, not so-called "blue collars" which is a misnomer anyway. Hopefully, she hasn't solidified them into a "Hillary or nothing" voting block because this is a group that has always been quick to recognize racial appeals when they see it. If it is ignored or explained away now I think it means Obama truly won't get their support in November. Sorry to talk identity politics, but it's the only way to address what the Clintons are doing.

There is no doubt in my mind her goal now is to deny Obama the presidency and hope four years is long enough to repair whatever damage she has to do.

There seem to be two issues here: First, her implication that blacks are not hardworking Americans.  I agree that this was inadvertent, but no less damning for that.   It most likely means that when she pictures "hardworking American" she pictures someone who is white.  Not that she consciously believes that blacks aren't hardworking, just that they fall into some category that is not tagged by "American" or "hardworking". This tacit assumption that "white" is the default "American" condition is, I think, behind a lot of the remaining racism today.  That said, you'd probably want more than a single slip of the tongue before calling someone a racist.  She should just apologize for poor wording and we should all move on.

The second issue is whether white Americans will vote for Obama in sufficient numbers.  There's nothing wrong with bringing this up.  It should have been brought up ages ago.  Also one should consider the question of whether sufficiently many Americans will vote for a woman.  Most likely the answer to both questions is "In general, no, but this year the war and the economy will trump all other issues."  In any case, it's too late to bring up the question now.  Doesn't she realize that she would need to convince about 80% of the remaining superdelegates?  The Clinton campaigns inability to do simple mathematical calculations is just flat out astounding.

A couple questions for the racial thought police on duty here:

1. Can someone explain what is inappropriate about a candidate arguing that he or she deserves to be nominated, among other reasons, because they are likely to do much much better among white voters than the opposing candidate?  Certainly, Obama has a strong argument to make that he would do better among black voters than Hillary, and no one questions the legitimacy of him making that argument.  

2.  A voter looks at Obama and judges him to be a smooth talking freshman Senator with no executive experience, for whom no one has any idea of what kind of President he would actually be.  This voter also judges him to have gotten as far as he has - on the cusp of being leader of the fucking free world - as quickly as he has in large measure due to skin color, based on the fervent desire of white elites to support, nurture and WORSHIP brilliant black people.  And this voter resents Obama for having this privilege.  Is this voter a "racist"?  And should it be Democratic Party policy to write off voters like him?  

Yesterday, Dick Morris wrote this in The Hill , dismissing the idea that Hillary would adopt the Mike

gurdjieff66

I hate to break this to you, but Obama hasn't made that argument. He's talked a lot about how he does substantively better than any previous candidate among new and or younger voters.  

That said, I think  you summed up what bugs folks about Clinton with this here phrase... "deserves to be nominated"

I mean, if she'd gotten more votes than Obama ... would you or anyone take suggestions that he deserved to nominated for other reasons seriously?

O' and to answer your other question. No I would not judge that voter racist. I'd wonder what executive experience they were attributing to Senator Clinton and ponder how they'd managed to conclude [scarcity of examples aside] that being African American offered one a leg up in the nation's political process. Then I'd probably get around to remembering that "racism" is about economic and political exclusion on a societal level rather than individual attitudes and ask why the question had been asked in the first place.

This is a far more offensive statement that Obama's "bitter" comment, which as we all know was The Worst Thing Ever Said In the World, Ever. Even setting aside the obvious racism: I am sick and tired of Hillary telling me I don't matter - I live in a caucus state, I have a college education, I don't live in the Heartland of America, and now I'm apparently not "hardworking" enough. I am sick and tired of her pissing all over me, and she can shove it up her ass.

gurdjieff66,

The Democratic Party should do its best to educate voters like you describe in #2, because that voter is an uninformed idiot. The clues are that he thinks he is expected to "WORSHIP" Obama (that's stupid), and thinking that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama, who has mixed-race parents, somehow is getting privileged shortcuts to the White House.

gurdjieff66, point one, there would be nothing wrong with her pointing out she does well with her bloc of supporters (be they white, black, or purple) if her bloc was the majority, but she would not even need to point it out since if she had the majority she would have won the nomination. It is her claim that her minority is worth more simply by virtue of their skin color. Obama's bloc is bigger than her bloc, hence he has won the majority of the delegates and the majority of the votes. In addition he has also won the majority of swing voting independents. Her argument is anti-Democratic (give the nomination to the second place finisher) based on purely racial terms (because poor whites won't vote for a black man).

That is simply evil. We live in a Democracy, count up the votes and give it to the winner, Obama has earned the right to lose. Hillary has not.

gurdjieff66: you chose the right verb, "resents".  Hillary, and the Republicans, have been running on the politics of resentment and fear.  Your resentful voter, I suspect, will not be swayed by rational argument; he or she is the type to vote for W because Kerry is too smarty pants and W is regular folk-like; he or she would probably not vote for a woman either, because they would look a senator who spun twenty years as political spouse into some sort of "executive experience", when we know that no matter how long Nancy Pelosi stays as Speaker of the House, HER spouse could not, under any circumstance, run around the country boasting of HIS experience.

There are also other voters, not quite as resentful, who will look at this "skinny kid" names Barack Obama, who has outpolled a skilled politician and a formidable political machine, who has deflected attacks that would have sunk far more experienced honkey senators, who speaks and writes in sentences, and who readily admits to being imperfect - and finds the beauty of the American promise wonderful.  

You know, gurdjieff66, I am not American and don't live in the US out of choice, but I actually believe in that dream and that promise.  And for me to believe that, and to continue to have any respect for the office of the US President as the leader of the Free World (that respect has been sorely tested for the last forty years ...), I also have to believe that there are more voters like mine, than like your resentful, hateful, race-obsessed example.  Dare you to prove me wrong ...

WoodyBombay -- But Democratic party primary voters HAVE given a black man named Barack Hussein Obama a privilieged shortcut to at least the Democratic nomination, haven't they?  Has any major party EVER nominated a less experienced candidate?  In 1960, JFK had been in Congress 14 years.  In 1992, Bill Clinton had been governor for the same amount of time.  Obama has 3 years as a community organizer, 3 years as a civil rights attorney and eight years as a state legislator.  It's like picking a top high school quarterback prospect for the NFL!    

This is not to say that Hillary is any more credible on the experience front.  (The Kosovo story was particularly devastating in illustrating this.)  And Obama has many other attractive qualities.  My point is that it seems quite reasonable to conclude that Obama's incredible lack of experience would a deal breaker for any white candidate with the same credentials.  And it is not "racist" to resent such privilege, or be skeptical or suspicious of someone who is beneficiary of it.  Would Bill Clinton have had a shot at the nomination in 1980, or 1984?  

icarus -- I agree Obama has many attractive qualities likely to serve him well.  We also have a few indictations of what his general style will be: he'll try to be concillator, a negotiator.  I think that's good too.  

arsonplus -- Obama might not have said that he would do much, much, much better with black voters in a general election than Hillary, but its obviously true and if you're a superdelegate, it's the main reason for supporting him rather than Hillary from a purely electoral perspective.    

"[how can one conclue that] being African American offered one a leg up in the nation's political process?"  

Being an African-American is not an asset.  Being a highly intelligent, articulate, hard-working, charismatic and non-threatening African-American who can plausibly been seen as being concerned about all Americans, not just black Americans, IS an asset.  See Charlie Rangel.  Or, see Colin Powell, who could have been president if he had wanted it.  

I thought part of her coalition was Hispanics.  Which of her hard working "white" Hispanics are part of her broad coalition?   Charo?  "cuchi-cuchi"