Clinton Calls Workers Racists

May 9, 2008

"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 Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Clinton obviously implies, that "working, hard-working Americans, white Americans" are racists who will not vote for Obama because of his natural melanin level.

How do "hard working ,white Americans" feel about being called racists?

Posted by b on May 9, 2008 at 14:36 UTC | Permalink

Comments

How do hard-working, white Americans feel about be called racists?
I guess it’s how you ask them. My impression (I get back to the states for a fee weeks every year or two — so, my experience although small, gives me snapshots of how the mood develops in central Florida and north Illinois)is that “black” can be a code word for the “N” word. It depends how it is phrased, a nuance in the pronouncing of the word, which I can’t reproduce in this medium.
That said, I think Americans would, even though they may have a number of prejudices against “blacks”, would be offended if you called them racist. They can therefore vote for a guy like Obama exactly because he doesn’t come on as really black — that is, he’s not like “those blacks”.
In playing this card, Hillary has, as they say in Danish, “shot herself in the foot”. Worse, she is now blatantly coming on like she thinks the presidentcy is something she is “entitled” to…

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | May 9 2008 15:59 utc | 1

As a (mostly*) “white”, hard working American, I voted for Obama. I’ve had a hard time explaining to my adopted mixed race daughter just why he’s so significant. She and my wife are strong for Hilary… Anyways, I am racist, but I’m working on it. What I really am is anti-royalist.
*(15 great grandparents from Europe, 1 from Java)

Posted by: Peter VE | May 9 2008 16:02 utc | 2

My first thought when I read this yesterday was that obviously Obama has all kinds of support or he wouldn’t be beating her. Losing is losing. My proof? None but that my demographic should place me in her camp. What she says and does and what he says and does are what matters to me.

Posted by: beq | May 9 2008 16:45 utc | 3

@Peter VE – Anyways, I am racist, but I’m working on it. What I really am is anti-royalist.
Well, ask your wife, daughter and the Hillary campaign and they might say you are against women getting high positions 🙂 …

Posted by: b | May 9 2008 18:19 utc | 4

So many strands, so much confusion, so much self foot shooting.
No party can be torn like that and come up with a win. Never.
It is the End of the Dem party in any meaningful terms. (Not that it ever was any use, etc.)
The pity is that the ppl. involved know it: One or the other may play a minor role in Gvmt – Losers can win a lot in lower positions, and endure.
Who, in the US, cares what % of the demographic one or the other holds? How can that occupy front stage?
What are their policies?
Corporate mentality about market segments has infected everyone.
Elections become a horse betting race, a sock selling contest, a stock touting plug, a flash for the latest star who skipped underwear, or demographic analysis…

Posted by: Tangerine | May 9 2008 18:33 utc | 5

beq- That’s reassuring, I think. I seem to fall into the same demographic mismatch.
All born Americans are racist in some degree, I think, because we grow up in a culture that has been race-coded since before the time it became a nation. We become aware, self-correct, and emerge from that coding with variable success.
Furthermore, it seems that race awareness and debate is perpetuated and encouraged, in part, in order to submerge class/ economic awareness and discussion, as well as other shared issues.
The latter, I choose to hope, is Obama’s perception. Whether he will be able to act on it is another question. And if he has any tangible success politically, will he be stopped by non-political means?

Posted by: small coke | May 9 2008 18:56 utc | 6

If you haven’t read The Obama Party by dday at Digby’s, read it. The Obama thing is bigger than you imagine.

Posted by: anna missed | May 9 2008 19:00 utc | 7

@anna missed thanks for the link I read the articles and the comments at Digby’s and came away wondering “How many more times? “.
So Obama is trying to build a dem machine under his own control, or rather those who hold positions of some power in the Obama camp are trying to build such a machine. This is a lot like the DNC machine that cigar Bill and family built and clung onto even after he had his 8 years, so on the face of it, although Obama’s machine may get Obama and any future heirs into power in amerika, his efforts really don’t portend anything other than business as usual with the latest technology and methodology.
A number of dem loyalists comprehend that this is the case many do not, but none can really see that it isn’t the technology, methodology or the ethics, or lack of ethics amongst the leadership that matters. It is the whole issue of the dem party and whether it can exist at all as a delivery mechanism for social justice, that is the real issue.
A public delve into that issue is unlikely since it really goes to the heart of what amerika is and no one with political ambitions dares ask that question.
You see when amerikans look for adjectives to describe their nation ‘great’ or ‘big’ are pretty high up on the list and although great can mean a few other things, great carries the impression of large size at it’s core.
Therein lies the problem.
One large centrally led party or nation can never deliver socially just outcomes to its constituents. This is because the tendency of the powerful is to always consolidate power, so decisions which can only be made justly if they are made close to where they will effect, are made far higher up the food chain where they are weighed against other seemingly conflicting decisions, from other areas.
Eventually a decision is made, often after so much delay that great injustices have already occurred, and even then what is decided is usually a political compromise which satisfies none of the diverse places it was allegedly intended to aid.
amerika has grown in it’s 200 plus years and instead of splitting off sections as it should have done if it were to try and meet the ideals set out by amerika’s founders, the opposite has occurred as the already powerful move to increase that influence and wealth.
There are many reasons why the leaders of a nation want to get bigger, mostly to do with increasing power and wealth and silencing neighbouring critics.
I can only think of one good reason why individuals might think it is in their best interests to belong to a large anonymous group ahead of a smaller more sociable grouping, and that is for self defense.
Self-defense is not actually a good reason for being big at all. The trouble is when you are in a large group, there are many more opportunities for conflict. A large state becomes continually in conflict with others, so conflict becomes almost eternal, a situation unlikely to develop in smaller groupings. So self defence becomes self-offense, just as we have seen with present day amerika, the major reason for being big becomes one of the major disadvantages.
Obama ,Reagan, Clinton, Bush, whoever. Any large power structure is physically unable and strategically disinclined to deliver the sort of outcomes that most people who support the dem party claim to want simply because notions like fairness for all can’t be delivered by a huge centrally run organisation, in addition peace and goodwill to the rest of the world is at odds with the ambitions of those at the top of the organisation.

Posted by: Debs is dead | May 9 2008 21:53 utc | 8

With the millenials coming along what does it matter what working whites believe. Gen Y rivals the boomers in size and half of them are minorities. Also, they have much more tolerant beliefs. This is the last grip of the Clintons on the side of a mountain losing their hold. When Bilary drops out the fall will be hard. Goodbye Lanny Davis. He is an ass.
Nice link anna. But I do believe theres more behind what Obama is doing. He has to run to the center. If he associates with the bloggers, the O’Reillys will be all over radio and Fox News linking him to that hate site Daily Kos or some other stupid thing. And, a black man in the US has to pick and choose his friends so whitey don’t think hes a radical uppity African American.
If he can build a large center over time, then he has the power to push a more progressive agenda. But thats take work. Not paying volunteers is smart also. Vietnam war protesters weren’t paid. You have to believe your in something bigger. The only paid people are republicans attending campaign rallys or storming Miami Dade County to disrupt hanging chad counting.
The real issue here is does Obama believe in a redeeming and progressive politics. By redeeming I mean does Obama lead the country to a final redemption for the sins of slavery and our other unsavory past deeds. By progressive I mean moving the country in a more altruistic direction that we are all in this together and we must implement changes for the good of the country and future generations.
While like Debs I am very cynical especially after eight years of Bush and losing faith in collective wisdom of our country, I still want to believe we are better. If Obama deep down, or even his wife, a south side of Chicago sewer workers daughter, believe any of Pastor Wrights rantings, this country would be a whole lot better off and they will move Us in a better direction.

Posted by: jdp | May 9 2008 23:29 utc | 9

WHICHEVER side wins, America will still have the oilwars.con deficit spending.
Fed, State, local bankrupcy after bankrupcy. Potholed roads, burst utilities.
WHICHEVER side wins, America will still have the credit.con financial meltdown.
Fed, State, local bankrupcy after bankrupcy. No public services, suburban ghettos.
WHICHEVER side wins, America will still have USD-M3.con deflation-inflation.
Fed, State, local bankrupcy after bankrupcy. Soaring edu’s, homes, food, fuel.
WHICHEVER side wins, America will still have AgraPharm.con ecological disaster.
Fed, State, local bankrupcy after bankrupcy. GMO monoculture, Dead Bee Society.
Four Neo-Zionism’s of the Apocalypse. I hope Obama is ready to gird his lions.

Posted by: Polly Anna | May 10 2008 3:14 utc | 10

i find it intriguing that among those of us who should know better here in amerika we still somehow “hope” that despite Obama’s clear pandering to AIPAC and Wall Street he will magically morph into the republic saving progressive we erroneously suspect him of being.

Posted by: Lizard | May 10 2008 5:26 utc | 11

the reason why Obama is so down with the generation-y is because he is himself one. Generation-y is probably better cast as generation-i because its very existence derives from the proliferation of the information age. It’s inevitable that just like any other paradigm, a particular category/set/group of people would emerge as its greatest beneficiary. This one is all about information — the greatest resource ever revealed to mankind. And for the first time in history, people have unhindered access to information. Nobody has to be led to the water anymore. Drink of the “i” as you please. Its all yours. Knock yourself out. As a person of mixed ethnicity, the questions that Obama may have sought answers to are not unlike those that todays gen-i’s (of all races) ponder. Gen-i’s have been more or less invisible. Or withdrawn within their curiosity, conflicted-ness or skepticism. But no more. There are grandma’s in the middle of Nebraska or Harlem who are instinctively gen-i’s. Today, they are no longer alone.

Posted by: jony-b_cool | May 10 2008 8:33 utc | 12

Lizard,
Obama must pander to those groups just to get elected or they will smear the hell out of him. And yes, even though I mat be blind to the truth, I still hope the American people will see the light.
jony, you are right on the information age. At forty-five Obama is actually a late boomer. The last year for boomers is 1963. But he sure seems to connect with gen x and gen y. Gen X is small compared gen y. The oldest of gen y is only 26 years old. But there is so many 1/3 to half can already vote. This is the connected generation. I have three gen y kids raised on computers, video games, scientific calculators and cars with loads of gadgets.
Gen x is only about 48 million strong in the US compared with
77 million boomers. But gen x has always resented the boomers and their power. Throw in the 70 million gen y’ers with 48 million x’ers and you have a formidable force. Boomers get ready, just like the Clintons, our whole generation will get thrown under the bus by our own kids. And Obama knows gen x & y are the future in politics. I’m sure you’ve heard all the storys of peoples kid telling to vote for Obama.
The Clinton’s are the past, and so are the older white workers voting for Clinton. If not this year, 2012 and 2016 will bring a big change. You will see younger and younger people running for office. Gen x don’t have enough persons to fill the gap that retiring boomers leave behind. Gen y influence will come on fast.

Posted by: jdp | May 10 2008 13:54 utc | 13

I have three gen y kids raised on computers, video games, scientific calculators and cars with loads of gadgets.

What would they [know how to] do if there were a power failure + all the batteries were dead. And no central heating. And they couldn’t Google.
Specialist populations crash when critical resources become scarce.

Posted by: rjj | May 10 2008 16:33 utc | 14

jdp: what light do you hope the amerikan people will see? a holy light? the light of illumination? maybe the blinding light of O-bam-ya’s charisma shining through the television to let us know it will be okay; that the soldiers in amerikan cities are there to help, and the national curfew is to keep us safe.
i understand Obama is required by the system to recognize the hoops and know when to jump, but you can’t just go and placate AIPAC without expecting Israel to play hardball if crossed. on the televised debate before the Penn. primary Obama stumbled hard when asked by one of abc’s stooges, maybe the guy with the dignified jowls and haughty demeanor, if Obama would treat an attack on Israel as an attack on amerika. his reluctance to state implicitly yes, like Hillary “obliterate ’em” Clinton, did give me a glimmer of hope, but just a glimmer.

Posted by: Lizard | May 11 2008 1:42 utc | 15

rjj,
I don’t believe we are quite to that point yet. But, my kids grew in rural America and I come from a farming, hunting, fishing and I am sure if times are hard we’ll make it my kids will adapt with my help. And, you question or statement doesn’t match the points being made on this thread which is about whity and what Obama is doing to counter Clintons white folks voting for her. Please read anna missed link which is remedy to the opening question.
Lizard,
There is still collective good in the American people. Its when politician create factions that flame throw that light turns into dark. The rich and media don’t want collective good, thats socialist and we would strip their wealth. Dividing and playing to peoples worse fears is whats evil.

Posted by: jdp | May 11 2008 17:34 utc | 16

jdp: very interesting how seamlessly you can move from “my kids grew up in rural amerika…we’ll do just fine when the system crashes” to “there is still collective good in the amerikan people.”
interesting, because when things get tough, as you’ve clearly shown in your response to rjj, there is a natural tendency to want to protect “me and my own” first. It’s not personal, just a programmed biological imperative to want to ensure one’s genes keep playing in the pool.
Anyway, back to Hillary implying her white working class supporters are racist: she is desperate, and it’s showing. Even her attempt earlier on to brand Obama as “unknown” smacked of the old colonial fear of africa’s mysterious heart of darkness. How unknown can a person running for president with two biographies available and combed over by a scandal-ravenous 24hour media cycle be?
anyway, the self-congratulating punditry of Air Amerifuck seem to be uniformly parroting HillBill’s imminent demise…… unless, of course, something “BIG” happens.
wonder what that could be?

Posted by: Lizard | May 11 2008 18:47 utc | 17

Lizard,
I just read over at Huffington or some other blog maybe Raw Story that the Clintons are still looking for dirt on Obama.
My dad ran a log skidder for a living and my grandfather had a 365 acre farm and a logging business. I made my money through high school throwing hay bales. My kids all had jobs at 16 years old, mowed lawn, weeded garden, put up wood and any other activity required and played sports. So, while they are very smart and tech savvy, they also know how to work. If what rjj stated happens and the system crashes it will be civil unrest and family and friends will sorely be needed. Hope it doesn’t get that far.

Posted by: jdp | May 11 2008 20:01 utc | 18

jdp: i respect where you’re coming from, but i grew up in suburbia, and my experiences have led me to harbor a much lower estimation of amerika’s collective potential. currently i live in an intermountain western state in a university town that’s turning into a boomer retirement playground, driving up living costs as wages remain stagnant. on top of that the job i just quit was in the service industry, food to be specific, and you can’t imagine how rude and demeaning some of our customers can be to the kids making lattes and serving sandwiches.
so forgive me if i don’t share your upbeat assessment of the collective good that resides…where exactly? between our gluttonous consumption and our national arrogance? maybe somewhere beneath our collective willingness to allow violence to be wielded by sociopaths if that’s what it takes to keep our amerikan way of life from crashing in on itself, because that is what plays around the world, and too often it’s accurate.
personally i’m sick of the speculation over which stooge has been pre-selected to take the amerikan reigns. if Obama shows any hint of deviation from corporate protectionism and fiscal enslavement he’ll be taken out, not Kennedy style, because that would trigger national riots, but more like a Wellstone plane crash. anyone old enough to spit forty years ago should remember that’s how those who step out of line are dealt with in this country: eliminate what you can’t control. same goes for you and me.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 12 2008 1:27 utc | 19

@19,
personal testimony : the best thing I ever did for me was become my own boss.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | May 12 2008 3:25 utc | 20

unless, of course, something “BIG” happens.
…..
more like a Wellstone plane crash.
it’s frightful. i guesstimate 90% of obama supporters have considered this outcome or something similar. even today on the sunday political talk shows the questions surrounding why hillary stayed in the game against impossible odds…
jdp, i share your vision of resourcefulness in our youth.

Posted by: annie | May 12 2008 3:49 utc | 21

obviously that was me @19.

Posted by: Lizard | May 12 2008 4:05 utc | 22

jdp, i share your vision of resourcefulness in our youth
i’m glad jdp is raising kids who know the value of hard work. i got my first job at 15 and have worked in different capacities at a dozen restaurants, and i have worked hard at almost every job i’ve ever had, except cleaning golf carts at a country club, which was basically just a front for a sixteen year old suburban brat to steal beer.
so it would probably do me good to believe in the resourcefulness of our youth, considering i was one not too long ago, and am about to have one in just a few months, but as a product of the upper-middleclass suburban conditioning that includes side effects like an increased rate of suicide and massive glitches like Columbine, i’m a little nervous about the effect that kind of amerikan imprinting can have on an impressionable mind.
okay i should probably shut up now. happy mother’s day.

Posted by: Lizard | May 12 2008 5:17 utc | 23

Hillary Clinton’s Sunset Blvd
Some of us older (boomer?) MOA’s might appreciate this on a deeper level…lol

Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 12 2008 6:33 utc | 24

Uncle, the wiki version of boomers is very interesting. I’m a joneser than being born in 1959. But to say the later boomers weren’t shaped by Vietnam is plain dumb and crazy. I had an older brother, ten years older, who was in Nam in 1969. And I knew many others in the same situation. You sit and watch your father watching Walter Cronkite and the casualty reports nightly all the time hoping my sister in law receives her daily or weekly letter. Yes we were part of Vietnam in ways beyond imagination. While not old enough to serve, Vietnam set my beliefs of war for life which is I hate all war.
Further, a generation is twenty years of time, but can also be marked by events. While generation are subject to slotting, personal experience does more to mark the generation, if that be parents beliefs, the cars you drive, the status of your families class, upper, middle, lower. That is why boomers are so divided today. If any generation drag the US down, its the boomers because everyone is pulling in different directions.

Posted by: jdp | May 12 2008 17:12 utc | 25

Back to Main