May 9, 2008
Pathetic: Hillary Plays the White Voter Card (Brent Budowsky)
As part of her continuing campaign for the 2012 nomination and her campaign to elect John McCain over Barack Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton is closing her sad campaign acting like a right-wing Republican with the latest and most offensive example of race-card attacks.
Possibly because she is tired and letting her guard down, possibly out of sheer desperation combined with blind ambition, Hillary Clinton openly talks about "white people." Bill Clinton speaks to white audiences about "voters like you." Paul Begala says Democrats can't win with only intellectuals and African-Americans. Paul Krugman graces The New York Times with his wisdom about the white vote.
This is an incredibly low road end to an embarrassing and failed campaign that began when the coronation of the Clintons ended, and they sent forth surrogates such as Billy Shaheen in New Hampshire and a lineup of others with a succession of low-road, low-ball, low-content attacks.
It has failed, it will fail, and the real story of 2008 is how Barack Obama has maintained his dignity, his honor, his calmness and his leadership in the face of such an intense, organized, systematic campaign of personal destruction of the kind I cannot remember any major Democrat running against other Democrat for president.
Listening to the rhetoric of Team Clinton in the last 48 hours, we are witnessing a sad throwback to the politics of the pre-New South South. What is amazing is how thoroughly it has been rejected.
Soon, this ends. Soon, we turn the page. Soon, there will be talk of historic voter registration with the new campaign that begins this Saturday. Soon, there will be talk of 2 million Obama donors that will become 3 million. Soon, there will be talk of possible Obama vice presidents and a new chapter in American history.
For now, let us say of this last sad stand of the bad loser in this interminable campaign what Shakespeare wrote: Out, damned spot.
Permalink TrackBack
Email This Post
Share this post
What's This 31 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Barack certainly maintained his dignity and cool when he threw his white grandmother under the bus and could not break ties with a thug chanting "GOD damn America!" from his pulpit in his presence, I am sure. As far as mentioning white voters, hey we don't have "White History Month", we don't have "White Entertainment Awards", white colleges, etc. Whites along with recent arrivals of hardworking immigrants from India and Asia are the foundation of this country that push technological innovation, manage entire economy and infrastructure of this country. Give whites credit when it's due, Brent in your zealous attempts to find a new master. When I go into a voting both this November, it's voters who look like myself I'd be thinking about, just like the other side openly does.
Comment by Misha F — May 9, 2008 @ 11:13 am
Those white voters that Clinton is trying to "impress" must be those "typical white people" that Obama infers are racist.
btw, She is a Democrat, acts like a Democrat, and will always be a Democrat.
Brent I laugh more at your posts then any comedy routine I have ever seen or heard, keep it up! ROFLMAO!
Comment by Jon Pemberton — May 9, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Why do people get accused 'racists' when they are speaking the truth? why is it that it is ok for 91% of the Blacks to vote for an AA and these Blacks are not called racists? If it is ok for the blacks, then it should also be ok for 91% of non-black to vote for the non-black candidate. Let’s play by the same rule and Obama and his supporters should stop the double talk.
Obama’s win in NC proves beyond any doubt that he is a racially-based candidate. He can’t win the general election with just the blacks and the young. It would be another ‘Tsongas’ election! Clinton’s win in Indiana, by a slim margin, also raises the big question why Obama lost a state that he is supposed to win!
Clinton also started out about 23 points behind in North Carolina, and 8 or 10 points behind in Indiana. She narrowed the gap in NC, and won in Indiana. Can you imagine what would be the headlines if the situation was reversed? probably "Obama trounced Clinton with a huge 2% margin". And she did it with Obama continuing to outspend her by 3 or 4:1.
The media continues to be anti-Clinton. Her win should be presented in the proper context of the quality of each of these candidates’ electability!
The media has robbed the people of this country to see a strong campaign to continue in a fair and balanced manner. It is the worst kind of unprofessional and unethical journalism!
Comment by vote4thebest — May 9, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
Pathetic is putting it lightly. Her aim was to license open expression of the kind of unlettered, hackneyed, racist emoting, i.e., complaining about the lack of white history month, that we see here and get these people to the voting booth.
The 10 percent of black voters who did not vote for Obama must be feeling pretty stupid now.
Comment by dmw — May 9, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
Brent-
You continue to make more and more sense every day. Thank God the Clintons have been defeated for these in pursuing the sleaziest of sleazy tactics.
Comment by PR — May 9, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
Nobody is supposed to notice that 92% of black vote for Obama. Shhh, if you say it you'll be accused of being a racist, and that's just SO scary! Just like if you observe that illegal aliens congregate in certain places, you'll be accused of noticing their ethnic looks and thus being a racist. It's clear that the Democratic party and in this case Obama's supporters are using the accusations of racism as a weapon. Good job Brent, you've learned Mr. Alinsky's tactics so well. Maybe you should teach a few seminars on them in your spare time, just like Obama used to do?
Comment by Igor R. — May 9, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
If one ever has any doubt about choosing between Cinton and Obama, it sould completely gone after watching her in the last 48 hours. If Hillary so firmly believes she can win certain blocks of voteres while Obama cannot during the general election, then why not help him get them as a democrat. She does not have to be the nominee to achieve that goal. Hillary, let it go, please. We are not wrong about the Clintons. After all, they are just a couple of power hungry political animals and everything esle is for the convenience.
Comment by Xman Fann — May 9, 2008 @ 2:54 pm
For those who want to be a part of Hillary's 'white only' campaign, be my guest. We all knew she was a 'gun toting, beer drinking, cross burning, lynching' person, she just finally came out and admitted it. I personally feel sorry for her daughter. Bill, well he does whatever he wants anyway. To be a woman, she is not lady like at all and if I were Obama I would continue to let her drag her self down. She doesn't need any help. The person with the third highest seat in the Democratic whip happens to be african american. way to go Hillary. Keep lining up those supers for Obama.
Comment by Yvonne — May 9, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Shakespeare wrote: Out, damned spot.
He also wrote: "An old black ram is tupping your white ewe." Only here the ram is young and the ewe is not. But she's been tupped.
Comment by james d granata — May 9, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Yvonne, "cross burning and lynching", really? And you accuse me of incendiary language? Take a look in the mirror!
Comment by Igor R. — May 9, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
james, maybe the Dems have become a tupperware party? Or in another memorable quote from the Bard from Othello, "the beast with two backs"?
Comment by Igor R. — May 9, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
LOL… Hillary… LOL
Hillasaurus Rex can hardly contain her antiquity. I blame the overwhelmingly black voter rolls in Iowa for having started the Obama train down this track to the next Jurassic event. Who does he think he's foolin?… that Archeobamatrix… donning feathers and flapping his arms in an attempt to get the party off the ground? Doesn't he know that we are a plodding species???… with an impending date with extinction?
"Jonathan Livingston Seagull" comes to mind.
Comment by mspiglet — May 9, 2008 @ 4:56 pm
When Bill ran he recieved about 85% of the AA vote.. so what's your point
Comment by Aftermath — May 9, 2008 @ 5:37 pm
james, maybe the Dems have become a tupperware party?
Igor, BECOME?
Comment by james d granata — May 9, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
Gosh, Brent, you sound so hopeful it's almost infectious, luckily, however, I've been inoculated by 16-years of watching the Clintons lie, betray friends, claim credit fo ideas not their own, and make deals that are detrimental to the nation.
These last few days of down-and-dirty Clinton campaign tactics make the ugliness at the foundation of their political marriage darkly visible.
Meanwhile, I have always been suprised when people describe HRC as brilliant. This campaign, certainly, has proved that brilliance of thought is not her forte. And bluster-Bill refuses to have any contact with hard facts.
I know HRC and Bill don't think the folks in W.Va. are very smart - just hard-working and white - but, would you believe, Monica L. and Jennifer F's former good friend tried to tell an audience in Fayetteville, that HRC improved health care during his administration. I suppose that's why we all have such terrific coverage! Truth is: she bungled the issue and mishandled situation so badly that, except for lip-service, health care as a legislative issue has been buried for a decade.
I have often heard HRC called "wonkish" and I will give her that. She can cite obscure figures and reports by rote; yet, somehow it sounds hollow when she does - as though those figures and reports are not really connected to flesh and blood folks.
With HRC the peripheral, or superficial trapping are present, but there is no profundity.
Comment by barbara day — May 9, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Aftermath, I think that was the Alcoholics Anonymous vote.
Comment by Igor R. — May 9, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
When you reduce this campaign to the elements of racism the media constantly harps on, you miss the bigger picture of financial misery which was created right out of Washington. Poverty is an equal opportunity disaster.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 9, 2008 @ 7:54 pm
Great insight, it's good to see someone writing as it is! I find it interesting that Hillary waited until W.Va. & Kent. two states with small African-American populations ; I live in N.C., and I didn't here any of that rheotoric From Hillary's Campaign when she was here.Iguess she does understand the math: 35% of Dem. voters in N.C. are African-American. Well, at least we know how the republicans are gonna attack Obama this fall- bring it own!
Comment by Lisimba Tafirenyika — May 10, 2008 @ 7:31 am
It's long overdue for the media to start referring to those ethnic while collar HIllary supporters as the racists they are. Does anyone really think the Clintons don't understand their base? My disgust with the Clintons is not that they don't understand these people but that they would cater to them and use them to divide the electorate in order to win the nomination. Of course some of these people might be won over to Obama but most won't be because these divisions run deep and probably will have to work their way out of our culture as these people die off. Our best hope is that Obama can build a big new coalition consisting of newer younger voters, independents, and even Republicans who don't think like this to win. Let the racists go where they will.
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
Comment by rjcrane — May 10, 2008 @ 11:26 am
There's all sorts of rascism.
There's no doubt in my mind that HRC is your typical white liberal rascist.
Think back to the Black Caucus meeting in Texas. Dick Gregory made the point that Afro-Americans were sick and tired of hearing that individual achievements by blacks were credited to hand-outs by whites.
Then HRC sat and had the nerve to tell Mr.Smiley of all the great things the Clintons had done for Afro-Americans.
Ms. Clinton, MLK didn't need your help- LBJ needed his help. Toni Morrison won the Nobel Prize without your help, and black teachers, car repairmen, scientists, plumbers, journalists and the like do just fine without your gracious gifts.
Comment by Steve Shlafer — May 10, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
The good news is that the longer TWC (That Clinton Woman) keeps going, given the nature and tenor of her campaign, the more she turns herself into an ugly caricature. Perhaps next election cycle the good people of New York will send her packing: Bye bye, Hillary!
Comment by caliban — May 10, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
Steve Shlafer, I fully agree with you that black folks can do fine without anyone's help. Now, if you could just join me in calling for repeal of all quotas, affirmative action, calls for reparations and other nonsense from LBJ era.
Comment by Misha — May 10, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
Can some one turn up the volume, The fat lady is singing so hard; she is going horse. Hillary give it up. listen to the fat lady, President Barack Obama is waing in the wings.
Comment by henry — May 10, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
In the Left blogs today, it is considered a mortal sin to point out that Barack Obama has trouble connecting with white working class voters. It is a mortal sin to point out that in the South Carolina campaign, the Obama campaign fed the narrative that the Clinton campaign was race baiting. Indeed, the Left blogs themselves led the charge with this smear, notwithstanding the fact that it was utterly illogical. In South Carolina, the last thing the Clinton campaign would have wanted was African American voters rallying to Barack Obama.
In February, Obama was able to nimbly straddle appealing to African American voters while maintaining a broader appeal. Wisconsin and Virginia appeared to be watersheds, where Obama won both the white and African American voters (he has consistently lost Latino voters.) But from Ohio on, it became clear that Obama would not be able to sustain that. Jeremiah Wright was the biggest reason why. . . .
This problem remains remains unresolved and a deep concern for November can solve it.
. African American voters have been a staple of the Democratic coalition. While no constituency should ever be taken for granted, there seems to me no doubt, all things being equal, that holding white Democrats is more of a problem than holding African American Democrats. There is a long history on this issue. indeed, it remains a major concern.
That is a reality. And pretending it is not one will not make it disappear. The reality based community, if it ever existed, exists no longer.
Comment by CJbushwacker — May 10, 2008 @ 11:13 pm
Caliban,
As a native New Yorker, I hope Clinton gets the boot, but in the meantime HRC is determined to damage Sen. Obama in the hopes of electing the doddering John McShame.
Look who's helping her! Congressional bigwig Charlie Rangle spoke at a Clinton fundraiser here in Manhattan, yesterday.
The neighorhood destruction and pain that Bill Clinton and the Black, political cabal in NYC have brought to people who live and work in Harlem is enormous, and it has been little-understood by folks in the rest of the country. The only significant reporting on the issue I've seen has been in the NYTimes, and that paper is notoriously elitist and pro-real estate. Working people don't count when it comes to massive and cruelly intrusive real estate interests in this city.
Speaking of fundraisers, who is still contributing to HRC's failed campaign? and, why?
Comment by barbara day — May 11, 2008 @ 9:14 am
Whether or not HRC wins, there will be a Democrat in the White House, thank God. It's about time we get rid of the "point the finger" Republican and replace them with sound vision Democrats. A return to the aftermath of the FDR era is what is needed except this time with universal, single payer health care. Let's move on.
Comment by Jesse — May 12, 2008 @ 11:25 am
Jesse, whatever one thinks of the FDR's social agenda, he didn't surrender to the Nazis the way Mr. Obama will to the Islamofascists.
Comment by Igor R. — May 12, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
Igor,
Please explain exactly who and what 'Islamofacist' might be.
Comment by barbara day — May 12, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
Barbara, let me start by explaining something about Islam, namely that it's an all-encompassing ideology regulating not only the religious behavior of their followers, but also their thoughts, allowable speech, and the acceptable form of law and governing bodies in the lands of Islam. Among other things, Islam is an expansionist ideology as well as an ideology that only permits three forms of behavior for the unbelievers: conversion to Islam, second class citizenship known as "dhimmitude" with massive punitive and non-punitive restrictions, or death. It is also, in any kind of reasonable interpretation, not compatible with democracy.
In the lands of Islam, there are countries that in fact follow various interpretations of the above with different degrees of adherence. Some are ruled by dictators who while paying lip service to Islam, are just plain old dictators who have to cope with the attitudes of their population, which are generally Islamist (meaning believing in the political rule of Islam). Others are half-baked democracies or relatively benign monarchies with an uneasy relationship between the rulers and the religious authorities, somewhat similar to those in the dictatorships. There are other countries that are directly ruled by the religious authorities.
Islamofascists are those who believe in the strictest interpretation of Islam with respect to how those countries are governed. They will accept nothing less than pure sharia law imposed by religious authorities of their own sect, and thus a religious dictatorship. As a practical reality, they are often expansionist and perpetually dissatisfied with the treatment of their ideas abroad and western influences at home. As far as the West is concerned, it's their desire to impose as much of their ideology on the West as well as their treatment of the allies of the West in their midst that is of the most concern.
Comment by Igor R. — May 12, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
And by the way Barbara, if you want to know who to trust on the situation in the Middle East, read this NYT (not a Republican organ) article on the situation in Basra and then take a look at Brent's post that addressed the subject as one of its points and my response to it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/12/world/middleeast/12basra.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://pundits.thehill.com/2008/04/08/petraeus-for-president/
Comment by Igor R. — May 12, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
I found this article incredibly dumb. I sincerely believe the author does not believe a word of it but wrote it because somebody paid them to.
My stuff is a labor of motivation for fairness and truth.
http://www.hillary-wins.com
Comment by Alessandro Machi — May 17, 2008 @ 12:22 am