Senator Clinton: "Don't Alienate the Dixiecrats"

The assertion by the Clinton campaign that superdelegates should obey the will of the white voters because it is these voters who are most likely to defect to Republicans is silly, wrong and revelatory of a profound disregard for our nation's history of race relations.

It is silly because it implies that we should reward the threat of bad behavior. If there are some voters out there who are not going to vote for someone simply because they are black, why on earth do they have any moral authority, any claim whatsoever, on the Democratic party's selection of a nominee. Clinton's surrogates keep talking about working-class voters not voting for Obama. That's a crock. Millions have. The thing is, for some reason, whenever they say "working class," they mean WHITE working class. They've already mentally edited black voters out of the picture, which is a poor reward for their loyalty to the party.

It's wrong because it throws black voters under the bus. Would Clinton be where she is today without the support of black voters? If it is true that "our nominee needs to wind working class white vote," isn't it also true that "our nominee needs to win the black vote?"

Finally, it reveals a disregard for our country's, and our party's, sensitive history of race relations. Why is it that our system of apartheid stayed in operation so long? Because good people did nothing. Why is it that they did nothing? Mainly for political reasons. For decades, decades, southern politicians used the threat of defection to keep lukewarm opponents of segregation within the Democratic Party in check. In 1948, that threat of defection was made real by Strom Thurmond, and, again, in a last-ditch effort by George Wallace in 1964 and 1968. The argument during that era was that we shouldn't, as a party, embrace civil rights, because working class, southern whites would never accept this.

And now we are told that we cannot nominate Barack Obama because working class whites supposedly will never vote for a black man. Never mind that millions have done so already, or that white people make up a smaller proportion of the population than ever. We are being told that we cannot nominate Obama because we will alienate the Strom Thurmond, George Wallace wing of the party, those Democratic voters who will not vote for a black man.

The problem is that the George Wallace wing of the party no longer exists. There's a word for people who will not ever vote for a black man for president: Republicans. If you're the sort of person who wouldn't vote for a black man for president under any circumstances, chances are you left the Democratic Party years ago. They have been rooting about with their foul, porcine offalsnouts in the cesspool of Limbaugh-land for a generation. Our party is dead to them, and we should consider them dead to us, too. Yet Clinton wants to give this sort of person the power to choose our nominee. This, despite the fact that, unless Clinton is about to announce a massive change in her position on civil rights, the crypto-Klan have little reason to vote for her, either.

In 1963, LBJ heroically decided it was better to lose the south than to be wrong on civil rights. He effectively ended the practice whereby the national party kowtowed to certain "sensitivities" of white southern voters on Jim Crow. Clinton's old enough to remember all this, which is why the adoption by her campaign of the exact same logic used to keep Jim Crow going for so long is really, really bothersome.

who has a brain. It's going to be so much fun not to have to read what that scatterbrain is spewin' on about. So much like when I was happy about the prospect of not seeing bush's name on this board.

to pander to people who "might" vote for us.

It's a strategic move/shift.

She has a real problem!

If you're crying. I sincerely take you at your word that you are, though.

LOL.

LOL you are a Laugh-O-Rama Maddy. Sign up your son for Iraq sweetheart. Come on do it now!

Perhaps you have never seen or will never see or experience the type of prejudice that is practiced against people of color by some. Hillary's nod to this type of prejudice is contributing to the continual erosion of civil discourse and civil rights. We have grandchildren of mixed race and my spouse is black of Carribean descent. I worry for my family, not just those of African heritage, but the part of my family who is also of Middle Eastern descent. I see people who feel emboldened these days in a new way and it disturbs me greatly that type of language and thought have made their way into the Democratic Party. It is no laughing matter ams sorry to see that you apparently believe it is.

to HRC supporters? This is after months of ugly rhetoric and accusations of racism.I guess you now realize that if Obama secures the nomination, he will need the backing of the Clinton voters. Well, all I have to say is, you are wasting your time being civil at this late stage. It is too late. The damage has been done.

When you accuse the Clinton backers of being racists, well that’s like accusing us all of using the “N” word when describing obama. Words once spoken can never be recalled. My only regret is not making it known more just how big a damn bigot and racist obama is.

:(

Epic fail!

Defense Mechanism known as: PROJECTION. ;)

http://www.planetpsych.com/zPsychology_101/defense_mechanisms.htm

Projection is the attribution of one's undesired impulses onto another.

In 2 months here I haven't read a decent post from you and won't let your filth influence my opinion of the majority of HRC's supporters.

I have no intention of playing nice with people like you so off to ignore where you belong. My only regret is not making it clearer just how bigotted and racist I consistently found your posts.

over the years. bigoted and racist is an understatement

I don't think I want to see more than what I saw already :scared:

Time for unity, no side has been angels here.

And where is your evidence that Obama himself is bigoted or racist in any way, shape, or form? I want examples of things he has said and done, not his preacher or anyone else connected to him. The only thing I can think of that he said that was inappropriate was the "typical white person" comment, but I think he meant "typical white person of her generation". Do you have other examples?

Seriously, if this half-white half black man is a racist, that would be news to me.

because some nameless supporter of his who twisted the sexists argument into a racist one?

Let me know how that works out for you...

Good republicans, ron paul supporters, independents and the 3.5 MILLION NEW VOTERS Obama registered (so far) will more than make up the difference.

Of course, Obama supporters are going to play nice after the Primary. It's what you do.

Sometimes, reconciliation is easy. See Repubblicans in 1980.

Sometimes it's tough. See Democrats in 1980.

:thumbsup:

If you do not feel like Hillary has made her bed, but Obama is guilty then what do you use to support your assertions?

I have read some Clinton backers who have sunk low, accused Obama based on race for all kinds of stuff.

If you are saying he is guilty of something evil, let us know what you use to support your bigot theory. If you say he is guilty by association to Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers or some other boogie man, then say that.

:shrug:



Edited to correct spelling error.

I was paraphrasing--I had thought that it would be obvious that she didn't say that directly, but, given all the acrimony, perhaps I should know better by now. I was referring to yesterday's Clinton campaign press conference call that I listened to.

Here's the link to the conference call on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c6rC5ojS4w&feature=user

The call included Howard Wolfson, the campaign's Communications Director, Jeff Garon, the campaign's Chief Strategist, and Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer. One note if you listen to the audio: Phil and Howard have very similar voices and accents, so it's easy to mistake them for one another, which one correspondent does at one point.

It's not on the web in text form, so here's the relevant passage from Wolfson verbatim, beginning at 7:08 of the audio link:

"We need to continue making the case, as Jeff just did, that Senator Clinton is a better matchup against John McCain than Barack Obama, uh, that the fact that we have won contests, uh, competitive contests against Barack Obama, in key swing states, like Pennsylvania, like Ohio, like Michigan, like Florida, uh, mean that we will be, uh, a stronger nominee, uh, uh, against John McCain in those states and, in fact, we run today ahead of, um, Barack Obama vis a vis McCain in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Florida, all of those states critical, uh, to any Democrat running, uh, in November. Uh, that our proven ability to win blue collar and working class votes in primary after primary, uh, again suggest strongly that Senator Clinton would be the stronger nominee against John McCain. Those are key swing votes that any Democrat would need to um, ah, ah, win, in order to beat John McCain, we've proven that we can do that. Senator Obama on the other hand has not yet proven that he can win the key swing states, has not yet proven that he can win uh, ah, ah, the votes of blue collar, uh, workers, uh, and, um, ah, that will be the crux of the argument that we will make to superdelegates, uh, and voters going forward."

I include all the "ums" and "ahs" not to be snarky (OK, not wholly to be snarky), but to show that he's thinking very, very carefully about what he's saying. Wolfson's a pro for whom these conference calls are old hat, and he does not um and ah his way through them ordinarily: he's parsing his language very carefully to avoid saying explicitly that Clinton will win the white working class, whereas Obama (in his spin, which I think is wrong) cannot.

They do make some noises, in a question directly on this very subject, about not taking anyone's vote for granted. But then, in summation (at around 42:00 of the audio), they say this:

"At the end of the day, what I believe is, is that if you are a strong Democrat, you're going to, and Senator Clinton is the nominee as we believe she will be against John McCain, you're going to look as a set of profound choices, profound differences between Senator Clinton and Senator McCain, out of all the important issues that we all care so much about and in the end, conclude that voting for Senator Clinton is the right choice, because the differences between Senator Clinton and Senator McCain are so great. But that doesn't, again, obviate the fact that we're gonna have to work hard to reach out to Senator Obama's supporters, and, certainly, we've done it and we will continue to do it."

Even if you interpret all of this most charitably, the argument is that we should reward those who are weak Democratic voters because the "strong Democrats" will vote for any Democrat over McCain.

Editing 101: don't put quote marks around a paraphrase.

I'd do it, but the editing period has expired.

n/t

But the use of quotes really wasn't meant to imply she literally said that. It would be a silly thing to say, and, whatever their mistakes, her campaign has been very careful about what they've said.

THese tactics are driving folks to obama than away. It's too obvious and it just won't wash in the end people are looking for substance and division doesn't pass legislation, really.

than the votes of loyal Democrats will not be one that will fly with superdelegates, because most of them are elected by the same loyal Democratic voters whose preferences the Clinton campaign would like to see ignored.

:crazy:

:puke:

People who are racist are not misogynists? If they won't vote for a black man in the GE, they won't vote for a woman either. Racism, sexism and homophobia go together like milk and cornflakes and sliced bananas.

I don't think that is accurate.

I've met people who believe in racial diversity but would not tolerate equality among women or gays or gay women.

I've met people who believe in gender equality but have that pesky fear of anyone outside their race and doesn't understand that whole don't ask don't tell policy.

I have also known people that believe sexual politics is where it is at but can't abide by the straights, don't want to deal with those add the expletive women, and have nothing but love for fellas of different races.


It doesn't necesarily come in a equally labeled intolerance friendly bigot basket. Sometimes a cereal only has one ingredient.

Thanks for the history lesson.

There's a whole literature on the history of our party during Jim Crow that would apply here, but I'm assuming most folks here are familiar enough with the history so that I don't have to document it--heck, some people here lived through it.

I actually think that Clinton, in her heart of hearts, does not think that the votes of swing voters should be given more weight than those of loyal Democrats.8

I googled it but only this thread shows up.

"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."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions. The Obama campaign, looking toward locking up the nomination, stepped up pressure on superdelegates who have the decisive votes in their race.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview_N.htm

Over and over again, not in so many words.

A losing argument for Dem superdelegates, I am sure, but it is what they are trying.

I was paraphrasing--I had thought that it would be obvious that she didn't say that directly, but, given all the acrimony, perhaps I should know better by now. I was referring to yesterday's Clinton campaign press conference call that I listened to.

Here's the link to the conference call on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c6rC5ojS4w&feature=user

If the elephant suit fits, Hillary, wear it.

Yep. Hence the bad politics as of late because it's more trying to appeal to republicans. You don't gather people under your banner by imitating them (especially when people are looking for something different now). You offer them something better and explain your position through reasoned debate. Otherwise, you lose your cause and soul.

for Obama... why is it always race that people latch on to?

what that say about you?

what does that say about the media?

what does that say about the Obama campaign?


hint: none of those have good answers

YOUR candidate said she was doing better among white voters. SHE identified them as white, and conflated them with the working class.

Because he actually stood up for gay rights in the military, how soon we forget. We have not had the south since and I doubt we wll ever get them back unless we contort ourselves into Republicans. The whole fallacy of Hillary being the candidate of the good old working class whitefolks is ridiculous. She is for universal healthcare, hardly a conservative democratic issue. Its just another "fairy tale" done by the Clintons to rewrite her history. Maybe its all those years of being burned by Rethugs...she decided to act more like them. Its rings false, however.

How?

What about DOMA? Was that standing up for gays?

Rp

Don't forget all the flack he got from people for even trying. Don't ask/don't tell was a dumb compromise that he made because of all the southern democrat dissaproval. Hey, I am an Obama supporter but I backed Clinton in the 90's as a teenager. Who else was there?

When John Kerry went to see Clinton in the hospital in 2004, Bill told him to abandon gay people and come out against gay marriage. Kerry said he could never abandon those people or his principles. The Clintons, aside from one speech from Bill, never did a thing to help Kerry win.

Kerry stood for his principles and stood up for gay people even if it was politically unsafe to do so. I dare you to find me a moment when either Clinton has done such a thing.

Also check the record... Bill Clinton was a Republican's dream. He passed pretty much every bit of big business legislation they ever wanted and that gave Bushco the ability to only have to move those policies a little further to get them to the envelope's edge.

Rp

We have a winner!

Dead on about the polling. That's what happens when you put polls ahead of principles. It also explains why they slice and dice the electorate the way they do--that's pollster-think. Why do they divide up up into demographic groups? Because they have the data. They are like the proverbial little boy with a hammer.

Though, to be fair to the Clintons, I do think that they actually have liberal principles at heart. They just choose to ignore them in the name of expediency whenever (they deem it) necessary.

I was in my twenties back then and that is exactly how it happened. He tried, but had to compromise because of the Republicans' Contract with America talk during the Congressional races in '94 (they started talking about it at least a year before that technically). I remember Bill Clinton being the first ever candidate that I ever saw who held true to his campaign promises, however, he had to compromise a lot. I still can't stand Newt Gingrich to this day because of that.

“What we have not been able to count on in the last elections are the voters I’m getting,” she said. “Women, particularly lower-income women, didn’t vote for John Kerry. “Hispanics didn’t come out for Sen. Kerry in the numbers that people had hoped for. Working people are really a part of the base that we lost that we’re trying to win back. So, I’m sure that whoever the nominee is will make a very strong case to put together the numbers you need to get to the electoral vote magic 270, but I think the base I’ve put together in these primaries is a stronger place to start from.”

-snip

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/07/993007.aspx

First off KERRY WON!! (too bad HRC didn't fight for the Dem votes in Ohio and elsewhere that were disenfranchised). Secondly, Sen Obama has brought many young people and Af Ams into the process who didn't feel compelled in the past. He has also brought former Republicans (I will attest to this as I am working shoulder to shoulder with them on his campaign) into the fold. Does this mean ignore Hillary base that voted for bu$h? Not necessarily but don't hurt the ideals of your strong supporters to pander to another group. He kicks off a 50 state voter registration campaign May 10th which will also add to our Democratic base. He is running a smart campaign and has been growing his base among those who support Hillary by letting them get to know him and his issues.

Wolf Blitzer was saying that someone said the Democratic Party needed to reach out "to working people, to urban voters, suburban voters and rural voters". He then turned to a black colleague in the studio and said "Who is missing from that list? What about African Americans?"

Obviously "urban, suburban and rural" already includes everyone in the whole country. So the idea that anyone is "missing" from that list is ridiculous.

It's the idea that African Americans are a totally separate and homogenous group, and that any other group you care to mention (such as "working people") does not include black people.

It all boils down to racism.

I thought the last of the stragglers managed to wake up and realize they were on the wrong bus a few years ago with Zell Miller.

Do we really WANT Dixiecrats in our party, helping to shape policy, running candidates they agree with etc? I don't think so!

There are none left, which is the point. Let's not screw over the black voters, the working class voters, the gay voters and the liberal voters (all of which overlap, of course) to please the crypto-Klan.

the DLC is also loosing power.

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.