I think the problem with her comment is the juxtaposition of "white" with "hard-working".  That pushes *all* the wrong buttons.

I would think that at least some white americans would be offended that Hillary Clinton thinks they're all racist and therefore wouldn't vote for a black president.  But the truly offensive part of her statement was equating "hard working" with "white."  Sorry, but black folks work pretty hard too.  Oh yeah, and show me the Democratic candidate that wins the election with 8% of the black vote.

Mr. Crowley aren't you a white American, and a hardworking one at that too?

One thing I've never figured out about HRC's campaign is its tendency to spin especially during times when there's no need to. Given that that she's got 51% in Indiana why isn't her campaign mobilizing that crowd / that statistic to support her instead.

But the most interesting and significant statements in this campaign are the ones that no one has made.

Michael, It isn't painful to hear her say it. It's sad that she's playing off of racial biases to make the argument for her continued Presidential run. But it's about time people realize and accept the fact that a lot of undereducated, working-class/working-poor whites supporting Hillary won't vote for a black presidential nominee regardless of how "well-spoken, bright, polite and light-skinned" he might be. Why is it so hard for some people to realize this? Call it what it is.  A lingering racism of the polite kind.

What's worse is the press and media won't touch that aspect for fear of upsetting these same folks who don't consider themselves racist of the KKK kind but won't bite their tongue when passing under-breath slanders against minorities.

What I find ironic in Hillary's statement is how she has the temerity to claim she has a "broader base to build a winning coalition on.". Perhaps her unsaid double entendre should have been a "wider base" since she's been courting the white underclasses of the midwest and rust belts of America. She really has nowhere to go but out but she's slowly undermining her case to be President by isolating a greater portion of the US population in order to curry favor from her white working class base.

There are some folks who will claim she's not doing this purposefully but she has been. Kudos to her for trying to bring Reagan democrats back to the party but not in the manner by which she has done so far. The non-denial denial of Obama not being a Muslim, questioning his patriotism through his "exoticness", etc. all basically play into the subtle racial biases that many in the undereducated, working class white base still cling to.

Maybe Hillary is feeling bitter after all she's felt she's accomplished and done for the country and her "whiter base" is the last thing she's able to cling to.

Totally agreed with grantham. Also, it's one thing for the press to say whites won't vote for a black man. It's entirely another for a candidate to say, in essence, "Vote for me because I'm white."

Another thing that's rather striking to me is that while older white people (even liberal ones) all think that there's no way a black man can win. Younger people (by which I mean less than 45 years old) are not making this argument. I see this both in the press and in personal conversations I've had.

Clearly the problem is that Hillary didn't just substitute "white people" for the euphamisms that have been used.  She used the euphamisms and then said "white people."  

Even before this statement, it was unsavory the way the Clinton campaign seemed to imply that this one demographic group -- lower-income whites -- was above the rest in a number of ways, including, it sometimes seemed, morally.  In this case, Hillary really doesn't just imply, she comes awfully close to making this argument explicitly -- "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans."

Perhaps she didn't mean to equate white Americans with hard-working Americans -- she just wanted to talk about them as two different groups -- or maybe she started with the euphamisms and said to hell with it.

You could also call it a gaffe or a distraction, but read at face-value it's certainly not a quote to be applauded.

Expect her to say worse as we get closer to Denver....

<I>is it so transgressive for her to say it out loud? Everyone in politics and media has been having this conversation for more than a year now.</I>

Yes, it is so transgressive. The worst possible justification for a repulsive thought is that everyone in politics and the media has been having the same one.

Where's her follow up?  If's she's going to make that statement (in a similar vein to our Gov. Rendell), she's needs to follow up and say she wants to change it so america will elect a black president.  She obviously is happy with the fact so she can use it to bludgeon the superdelegates.

This may be a false dichotomy -- it's not that it's abhorent for her to say it, but she COULD have made the point without being so explicit.  I've written before about the double-standard the media has imposed on Hillary Clinton when it comes to race (and other things), but in the context of the Clintons post-SC shout-out to white america "hey, the blacks are gonna pick the nominee!" I think it's incumbant on her not to even hint at a white v. black conflict.

First of all, the problem begins with "working class" as a euphemism for "white and blue collar".  You can use this only so long as you never, ever make it explicit, because as soon as you do, you're saying that that blacks are shifty unemployed layabouts who certainly aren't working.  OK, I'm exaggerating, but there's no getting around the fact that tacitly assuming that "working class" people are white is inherently racist.  

And Clinton goes farther than this, saying hardworking Americans are white.  Doubtless, this was inadvertent, but it doesn't say anything terribly admirable about her subconscious.

That aside, the question of whether sufficient whites will vote for Obama is, of course, a valid question.  It should have been confronted head on, and it should have been explicitly raised months ago, before it was too late to do anything about it.  Another question that should have been confronted is whether sufficiently many people will vote for a woman.  

Of course, although pundits may have avoided it, voters have doubtless made this calculation already, and have decided that answer is "This year, yes."  (Recall the shift in the black community from Clinton to Obama.  That is almost certainly the result of the realization in the black community that whites would be willing to vote for Obama).

Of course, the question was easier to answer "Yes" to when it looked like the Republicans were going to nominate a flip-flopping Mormon robot or a cross-dressing Yankees fan, rather than a funny, honest, enormously popular war-hero, but in any case, it's a bit late to worry about it now that Obama has secured the nomination.

Maybe it's because I live in NC and grew up watching Jesse Helms, but this is racial politics at its worse. Sorry, Mr. Crowley, but I think you know it as well. ". . . working, hard working white . . ." is a little worse than . . . say "typical white person" or "bitter," in this hard working white guy's opinion.

I understand this campaign has been fun for journalists, but all carnivals have to close sometime.

I think much of the discussion above misses the point.  Hillary isn't referring to white racism here.

Hillary obviously isn't talking about ALL white people.  She does much much worse than Obama among wealthier white people and those with higher educational degrees.  The full context of her statement makes this clear when she refers to those voters who had not completed college.

She's talking about blue collar voters but apparently thinks it's less insulting to call them "hard working Americans" (as if only blue collar workers work hard).  But, of course, not all blue collar voters support Hillary.  Specifically, the black ones do not.

So instead of suggesting that white voters would not vote for Obama because of racism, she's just pointing out that blue collar and less educated voters are not voting for him, other than the African-American ones.  If you think that blue collar voters are not voting for Obama because they're racist, that's a really harsh statement about those voters that should be supported with data rather than prejudice or supposition.

Anyway, I think Hillary's point is a good one.  The blue collar white voters are far less loyal to the Democrats than those who make up Obama's base and it seems smart to select a candidate who is more likely to appeal to those voters.

Like grantham and jdserwer said, it's the "hard working" and "white" together in the same sentence, as if blacks don't work hard.

In addition, though, Clinton once again fails to see the symmetry between her and Obama running for president.  Originally it was the experience argument, but if she was more experienced than Obama, then McCain was more experienced than her.  Now, she's the white candidate, but in the general, McCain is the male candidate.  Neither of her arguments work for her in the general election.

According to Nicholas Kristof today, "psychologocal data" show that a black man will have an easier time than a white woman getting elected. Hillary has complained of being a victim of sexism. Yet all we hear about is race. Obama will never say anything like she has said. Why? Because I think he (rightly) senses there's something unseemly about it. The question is: why is the press all over the racism question, and not touching the sexism one?

I think my previous post wasn't entirely clear. What I meant to say was that Obama has an argument as powerful, or possibly more powerful, that people won't vote for a woman. He never makes that argument because (I suppose) it is an unseemly one to make. The press, who do make the black-man-cannot-get-elected argument, never makes the woman-cannot-get-elected argument. Why not?

If it's transgressive, there's often a case for transgressing.  But the real interesting question is, if it's true that the, um, demographic she describes (hard-working white folks) won't vote for a black candidate under any circumstances, why won't they?

It's just circular logic to simply say that they are racist in some way.  Then it becomes "they won't vote for Obama because he's black, and Obama can't win because they won't vote for a black candidate."

So the question is, why won't our HWWF vote for a candidate if he's black (or perhaps even Asian or Hispanic?), if he's otherwise politically acceptable.  What is it about that fact (and of course he's as much white as he's black, another fact) that matters?

Is it behavior?  They think he'll do "black" stuff in the White House?  And what stuff?

Is it fear of a loss of some kind of racial status?  If a black man makes it to president then it's clearly not a "white" nation any more so "white" offers no more privileges to hide behind.

Is it superstition?  The belief that there really is a psychic "otherness" that race is a phenotypical manifestation of (skin color, hair etc).  We know that someone from East Africa can have more genetic features in common with someone from Norway than with someone from West Africa, but do we "know" that?

Is it resentment?  Obama's low-temperature academic demeanor most of the time is even more irritating because he should be like Jackson, Sharpton et al, but isn't -- the very "whiteness" of his delivery is a kind of provocation (he's fooling us, we just can't put our finger on it).

What is it?  What are the component parts of this attitude on the part of the HWWF?

Yes, because holding together the white, blue collar workers is what brought her husband to the White House. That and Ross Perot.

Her husband got 43 percent of the vote. Those voters voted for someone else in the 1990s.

Are you kidding -- this is a major transgression.  It's one thing for pundits to observe  demographic voting patterns, it's another for the candidate to make them the rationale for her candidacy.  And note that she isn't just making the observation that she is doing better among whites than Obama, she is implying that he will not do well enough in the general election among the white Democrats she has succeeded with in the primaries -- i.e. white people aren't going to vote for the black guy.

And, if you flip the logic, she hasn't proved in this primary that she can win the black vote, but to win in the general election, she is going to have to literally flip the 90-10 black vote against her to prevail (and worry about turnout).  However, Obama is too classy to say that.

Then let the asshole step up and ask whether Americans, in a time of war, will vote for a woman, Since neither question is known, then at most she is making a call for a white man to come to the rescue of the Democratic party. She can make the pitch for Al Gore, but not for herself.

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.

epic, your posting came as I was writing mine. so I absolutely agree.

Ironyroad, by stating:

"But the real interesting question is, if it's true that the, um, demographic she describes (hard-working white folks) won't vote for a black candidate under any circumstances, why won't they?"

I believe you're posing the wrong question.  Who says they won't vote for a black candidate under any circumstances?  All we know for sure is that they appear to prefer Clinton to Obama.

Why not ask why the "hard working" black folks this year are not supporting Clinton?

Is it transgressive?  Absolutely,  And totally beyond the pale.  Statements by candidates are made for their political impact, not for their truth value.  When a politician says it, it becomes a normative statement, legitimizing the behavior -- a racial voting pattern -- and seeking to benefit from it.  When Cracker Bill says, "Even Jesse Jackson won he South Carolina primary," he is not merely making an historical observation of an inarguable fact.  He is attempting to tie Obama to a widely reviled figure and diminish the accomplishment of winning the election -- "It was purely a racial victory and black votes don't really count."  Similarly, Ferroro's statement.  Objectively, it could be said directly to contradict Hillary, i.e., Obama only wins elections against Hillary because he is black.  But the purpose is race-baiting in both cases because in both the purpose is to appeal to racial voting and to exploit racist sentiment to get votes.

Try these on for size:  

"Many people won't vote for a black man because they still believe that blacks are lazy, shiftless and not smart enough to be president."

"Many people feel that an unhealthy sexual relationship between the Clintons has all too often improperly intruded on public affairs.  While it may not be Hillary Clinton's fault, a very large number of people are unwilling to vote for her because they do not want to bring those problems back to the White House."  

"Many people feel that the first woman who runs for president should be someone who has earned her own place in public life rather than someone whose public position is due primarily to whom she married rather than what she accomplished."

"Hillary's support comes largely from women of her own generation who want one of them to be the next president and from racist voters, both of which groups she actively cultivates.

True or false?  Acceptable or not coming from the candidate?

Or how about my favorite:

"A large segment of the population believes, however unfairly, that Hillary Clinton is a lying sack of shit who will engage in any tactic no matter how disgraceful or antithetical to the principles of the Democratic party in her effort to step on her husband's back and return to the White House."

That is objectively true.  Many people do think this.  Would it be transgressive for Obama to say so?  Do you really believe that racist appeals to the voters are acceptable just because they place the sentiment in the minds of the voters rather than as an expression of the candidate's own opinion?  Why, if you believe that, you must be a Republican.

bigm: "The blue collar white voters are far less loyal to the Democrats than those who make up Obama's base and it seems smart to select a candidate who is more likely to appeal to those voters."

I have a better suggestion.  Why not nominate a Republican, so that we can get the Republican vote too.  I mean, all those Obama supporters, especially the black folk, where are they gonna go, who are they gonna vote for?  And why should we risk nominating a woman, who might lose us the wife-beater vote?  I mean, women will vote Democratic any way, so we should only concentrate on the white, southern, conservative voter, right?  Why not just nominate McCain?

I've written this before, but this election recalls the John Lennon song (inspired by a Yoko comment): "Woman is the N***** of the World".  One thing Ferraro was indisputably (imo) correct about: when Obama anounced his canidacy, I was able to envision him winning (simply because there was a large, but undefined, "please not Hillary" sentiment out there), but I cannot imagine any scenario where an African-American woman could have won this primary.  

bigm writes "Who says they won't vote for a black candidate under any circumstances?"

Clinton, apparently.

Yo Epic - great to see you, what Blackton said.

roid, I am thinking of marketing a Hillary Clintho doll, Obama supporters and Republicans can guilt free beat the hell out of it in the privacy of their homes, and Hillary supporters can...well you know. I just wish I thought of it earlier.

Lymon, I cannot tell you how tiresome, tedious, self serving all this tired identity politics has become.  She ran a crappy campaign and lost and she had just as many gimmes for being a woman as prejudice. Parsing is so tired, a zero sum game. At what point is someone actually accountable for a poor performance?  I think we just saw it.  

Forget racism. She's only bringing it up because it fits the moment. Hillary's reasoning is the ol' circuitous shell game: the ends justify the means.

Vote for me because I'm the type of person that people vote for.  If Reverend Wright once acted as Obama's spiritual adviser, then Clinton has more recently been mentored by Yogi Berra.

Well, she can skip my ballot.  The argument that independents such as myself who currently support Obama should and will support Clinton don't amount to 450 pounds of corn (i.e., a tank of gas). I got other (nearly extinct) fish to fry.

I don't need to be reminded what abject devotion to the ends-justify-the-means ethos does to a society--the U.S., say, or Iraq, or Darfur, or Bosnia. My memory ain't that short.

Wandrey, great to see you too! A bit distracted lately, but it's fun to step out of the world of spit-up and talk election stuff!

Most of the points made about the difficulty of women and African Americans being elected are true. The fact they are not mutually exclusive is the danger. Most fair-minded people accept both points of view. That is exactly why what HRC is doing is so destructive and treacherous. She is pitting too groups with "right on their side" against each other. There is no backing down if she continues to push it. In other words, she seems to want a train wreck.

It's time for reevaluation. If you backup for a second and, instead of trying to measure the degree of wrongness, or evil, to determine if women or African Americans have the "best" argument, take a historical view, there might be a solution. We did not fight a Civil War because of the oppression of women. Maybe we should have, but it was race that brought the U. S. to the edge of destruction. Historically, and politically, there is simply no comparison between the significance of having the first African American president to having the first woman president. As unsophisticated, and insensitive, as it might be to say it out loud, it's true. On a 2008 identity, idealistic level it might be equal, but in the story of the U. S., the election of Obama is a bigger break with the past and offers a better chance of rejuvenation, which the country desperately needs. It past time for it to be acknowledged that "fairness" simply can't be the central issue here.

lymon, yeah but aren't there a sizable number of people who are pushing Condi Rice for VP? And they are Republicans, and she is female to boot. Or is it because she is a Republican she isn't really a black woman? And if Condi is the VP and McCain, who is old, does die do you really think the country would fall apart? I guess I am not as cynical as you.

Over at The Stump, Mike asks : If Hillary thinks white Americans won&#39;t elect a black president, is

The problem I see with this whole line of argument by Hillary is that it is based on the false assumption that those hardworking white folks are not voting FOR Hillary but voting AGAINST Obama.  Odd that Hillary doesn't consider that these folks are voting for her and not Obama because they simply just like her slightly better than Obama.

Why can't Hillary just use the glass half full variant: "Lazy Americans, Blacks and Browns, are voting in ever higher numbers for Barack Obama."  Every day she proves more and more definitively why she is a Bush-style divider in a country that desperately needs a (real) uniter.

One point that this discussion has not taken into account is that Obama has been doing a lot better with this particular demographic in Indiana and N. Carolina than previously in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Hillary's premise is discounted by the facts. Yes, blue collar whites do vote for Obama. I am really not worried about his GE prospects. Yes racism, sure, but a lot of them have been voting for Clinton for the simple reason that they have know the Clinton name for ever and are harder to sway in the direction of the new than other, less economically beleaguered voters.

Hilary is pandering to WV and KY white voters. Shame on her.

Two quick, semi-related thoughts: 1.) On the &quot;white Americans&quot; comment, I 80-percent agree

Ironyroad-

Clinton is not saying that the white working class won't support an African-American candidate under any circumstances, she's just noting that she has done far better among those voters.  Do Obama's supporters really believe that there is no other reason to be against Obama other than that he's black?  Yikes.

Icarusr-

Is it really so criminal to appeal to voters that are outside of the Democratic party's strongest core?  It seems essential if you want to actually win the election.

W. -- I largely agree, but where would Obama be without idenity politics?  Take away that 90% African-American vote in North Carolina alone and this race would be heating up, not ice-cold.  But while I do believe HRC had a number of double-standards used against her (more often than for her), I think her biggest blunder was the horrible waste of money early in her campaign (which explains the reason why she seemed to lose all the caucus and smaller states save Nevada and win all the larger states).  

B. -- Actually I think the Condi trial balloon (when she gave that domestic policy speech) went nowhere.  I can't even picture Colin Powell winning a GOP primary -- substitute him for McCain and we're looking at Obama vs. Romney (which, as a Dem, I can only say "if only!")

bigm: I don't know, but I get the vague sensation that the point of the Democratic primaries is not to find someone who appeals to the other side, but find a standard-bearer for your own values as a party.  What you want in a candidate is not a mirror that reflects or projects the other side's values onto you, so as to make him or her sellable to the other side while carrying your label, but rather, a spokesmand and a leader who will keep your own group intact and sell your ideas to as much of the other side as possible to get a majority of the votes.

So to answer your question, of course it is not "criminal" to appeal to voters outside the Democractic Party, but for the Democratic Party to mean anything, to have a reason to exist as a party distinct from the other side, it has to tend to its own house and to its own values first.  The "appeal" to the other side must, of necessity, be a secondary issue.

Mrs. Clinton threatens to rend her own base, while there is no guarantee that by appealing to the basest race instincts of certain demographics, she would have bring them over in the General Election.  

In any event, this "appeal to the other side" argument might, possibly, work for some politicians.  Hillary Rodham Clinton is, aside from Barney Frank and Dick Cheney, the one politician in the country who cannot, under any circumstance, claim to a higher appeal to voters outside his or her own party.  She is toxic; she is poison; she can barely mobilise her own base; what appeal?

bigm writes "Clinton is not saying that the white working class won't support an African-American candidate under any circumstances, she's just noting that she has done far better among those voters.  Do Obama's supporters really believe that there is no other reason to be against Obama other than that he's black?  Yikes."

Personally, I think there are other reasons.  Without doubt.  However, if Hillary states in public that "Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again" then she herself directs attention toward the issue of race.  If people are against Obama for -- as you suggest -- perfectly valid reasons, why does it matter that those people are white?

You can't use race to identify a group when you want to, and then complain that race is being used unfairly to identify that group's opinions.

At this point, Hillary is running for VP.  She's telling the Dems--that is, the Dems in the Democratic machine--that if we want to bring those white workers in, she's the person to do it.  I agree with whomever up there said she's appealing to blue-collars whites who work hard but feel they're being squeezed by globalization, etc.  She does have appeal to these people, like it or not.

Clifton, Hillary has no unconscious.  She's a robot.  Everything she says is calculated.  What she doesn't realize is that her calculations always backfire. And that's because she's got a bug in her software.  Subtlety?  Does not compute.  

Icarusr-

The point of Democratic primaries should be to find the candidate that can win.  Period.  Your statement that Clinton is "the one politician in the country who cannot, under any circumstance, claim to a higher appeal to voters outside his or her own party.  She is toxic; she is poison; she can barely mobilise her own base; what appeal?" betrays your own biases but it does not reflect the facts.  Clinton has an extraordinarily broad base of support in New York and she has consistently and successfully won fans from across the aisle, including from some very unlikely sources.  Obama talks a good game on this front, but it's Clinton who has succeeded in actually getting support from those outside the party.

Ironyroad-

Do you think it would have been better if Clinton phrased it that Obama's support among working class voters who are not black is weak?  That is the salient point.  Not that race is irrelevant.  It's just that among working class voters, the only group that consistently supports Obama is blacks.

Isn't that the same thing, bigm?  My suggestion woudl be, why not leave the whole question alone, as the truth of the matter is that both Obama and Clinton have working class/lower income bracket support?  I didn't notice Obama suggesting that the massive decline in African American support for Clinton is going to cost her dearly in November if she's the nominee.  He could, but it seems destructive to paint that picture, to almost wish it into existence -- and if she really were to be the candidate, she would work to bulid up that support again, and presumably with help from Obama.  Why doesn't the same hold true for Obama? -- if he's the nominee, he'll have several months of working hard to bring that demographic on board, but with help from Clinton.

But it doesn't seem to hold true.  In contrast to Obama, Clinton apparently feels no compunction about trying to suggest that (a) race is the reason that white working class support for Obama is weak, AND that (b) he won't be able to put that right between now and the GE.  Clinton's implication is that (b) reflects a rigid component of American political life, while Obama doesn't believe that race is a mental fixture or an immoveable impediment.

bigm: The point of Democratic primaries should be to find the candidate that can win.  Period.

But we all know that is Al Gore. Should we just pretend the primaries don't matter and nominate him? Or do you deny that Gore would win in a walk? Make the case for Gore and I will listen (maybe even agree in part) but that case isn't going to work with Hillary. She is a train wreck. She has lost blacks, lost eggheads, Republicans hate her, etc. Please don't pretend this is not so.

Win Period Gore

Lose Absolutely Clinton

bigm: I look at a 53% unfavourable/negative rating.  That's a lotta negative, regardless of my own biases.  Incidentally, up until South Carolina I was rooting for her.  I used to admire her greatly.  Blackie is right: Mrs. Clinton has already, and perhaps irretrievably, lost African-Americans, and possibly the eggheads.  And they did not necessarily figure in the 53%.  Hence my characterisation of her as toxic.

Is the point to find the candidate that can win, period?  Blackie is right on process - what's the point of the primaries, then?  But what is your answer to my question about the soul and the purpose of the Party?  You see, I see the Party as something other than a mechanism to gain power.  That is what the Clinton thinks.  A political party is organised policy.  Yes, you have to be power to implement policy, but if you get to power and lose your soul in the process, what have you got, what have you gained?  

"I largely agree, but where would Obama be without idenity politics?  Take away that 90% African-American vote in North Carolina alone and this race would be heating up, not ice-cold."

So what.  What - so black people having this much of a say makes it somehow not quite grown up, hmm?    

Sorry , but this is a classic passive aggressive degragation of black people and their importance relative to the important demographics, like poor white blue collars - also an emotionally stingy incapability of acknowledging Obama's job well done versus Hillary's awful, unprofessional mess.  

Its Hillary support as wide-eyed innocent poll reader, right?  Just sharing the facts.  Whoever and whatever supports Hillary has heft and intrinsic value, whoever doesn't -  well, obviously does not.  The narcissim boggles.

What would Hillary have if she didn't have divisiveness and her race-baiting microtrending?  Those endless little boxes she fits humans in to, with her fatcat slice and dice managers who charge 5 million for it - her pandering emptiness to whatever each little slice wants, regardless of the personal debasement she puts herself through.  I'm afraid she has made herself repulsive.  

It amazs me that that this does not go without saying, but here goes - all of these constant "what ifs" are embarssing sore loserdom, utterly lacking in integrity.

This is not the GE, hello?  

It's straight up race-baiting. I do have to wonder...does she actually have to call Obama a N($*%# for some of you in the media to FINALLY admit that she's been racebaiting since Billy Shaheen?

So I was wondering, where exactly are people getting all these numbers for "white working class," or, for that matter, "black working class" voters?  I haven't seen a single exit poll that has crosstabs for race by income, or, for that matter, race by education (I've looked at exits from CNN, CBS,  MSNBC, and Fox News).  That is, there are no numbers released for any group that you could reasonably call "white working class voters."  So what are people looking at to draw all these conclusions?

Mythology.  We assume there's such a thing as a "white working class" and therefore believe in the explanatory power that the existence of such an entity gives to all political phenomena from Nixon to "Bittergate."  So our belief confirms our assumption (and offers us a powerful narrative with dramatic potential to boot).

Great post, Wandreycer1. Good stuff.

I'm with eudoxie.  It's just more of the straight-up Clinton race-baiting, hence racist.  Absolutely, totally and completely inexcusable.  I hope she goes with Lieberman and joins the Republican party so that we can be rid of her, and then I promise everyone that we in New York will kick her sorry ass out.

Joe Conason on Salon.com:

"But this time she violated the rhetorical rules, no doubt by mistake. It was her offhand reference to 'working, hard-working Americans, white Americans' that raises the specter of old Dixie demagogues like Wallace and Lester Maddox. Was she dog-whistling to the voters of Kentucky and West Virginia?

...

This is the grating sound of Richard Nixon's Southern strategy, even though Tricky Dick would never quite stoop to saying such things in public."

When your supporters compare you unfavourably to Nixon, it's time to go.

Roi - I am in, whatever is building out there to throw Hillary's racist ass out of the Senate - INCLUDE ME.  I know several people here in the city who feel very strongly about this.  At what point do we do what is right and stop implicitly accepting this race baiting as DEMOCRATS?  Soon?  

Within 48 hours we should have a frigging press conferenece or something, the first official pronouncement from the newest Democratic interest group: "The Exhausted Drunken Hacks WHo Also Happen to Loathe Bigotry And There Nothing Wrong With Being Muslim, Remember?."

So I see that this quote from Hillary Clinton is now making the blog rounds: "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how

Okay, wandreycer.  I'm in.  Having recently returned after long absence to NYC for family reasons ("Never say never") I have been thinking about just what sort of political undertaking would be worth the time and effort.  Maybe right after the election we need to start a Dump Hillary PAC the purpose of which is to use the next three years to gather the financial resources that would let the right someone mount an effective primary challenge to Hillary, and give them the courage to challenge the NYS Dem establishment.  

But who would be the candidate?  I'd love to see a black woman, get the whole gender thing off the table and send exactly the right response to Clinton's race-baiting campaign.  But all the Dem women I can think of are firmly in Hillary's pocket, all snuggled up there together with Judith Hope and the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy. (I'll bet Eleanor Roosevelt is turning in her grave,)

Personallly, I certainly wouldn't want to be backing Andrew Cuomo who strikes me as suffering from the same political diseases as Hillary, although not in as advanced a stage.  Mark Green?  Tons of good policy ideas but has not been an effective campaigner in the past.  Bloomberg?  Well, he at least would be self-funded, as they say, but very unlikely to challenge any sort of establishment.  He is the establishment.  He's more likely to want to be governor except that path is blocked unless Patterson messes something up.  Suozzi?  At least he's a maverick.  

All ideas welcome.  Hillary disgraces the State of New York and the NYS Democratic party.  She should go be a Republican senator from Arkansas, but, one way or the other, she has to go.

Oh jeesh Roi - there is a line of great folks for that office, identity politics aside.  RFK Jr has said he wants it (hes not interested in Gov) Nita Lowry from Queens.

No Cuomo, loose canon, all about himself.

I know RFK Jr is a white guy and all, but hes got a huge following and tons of green cred.

Your observation about Cuomo is the same as mine.  That's why I said he has a less advanced stage of Hillary disease.  Nita Lowry would NEVER challenge Hillary.  I can't think of any of the women in the party who would.

I don't know much about RFK Jr, but I would be delighted to learn about him and would enjoy the irony of his winning the seat that was held by his father.  My god, it has been 40 years.  I wish I were living in the world in which RFK had been elected president.  I do believe that a great deal would have been very different.  

Hillary's problem isn't that she said a truth 'that dare not speak its name' but that her words equated 'hardworking Americans' with 'white Americans.'  That sticks in the craw of anyone who's not a racist - or should, anyway.

Well, magistra, when you engage in race-baiting, it ought to stick in the craw of anyone who's not a racist, because it sure goes down easy for the racists.