When I heard that Clinton said this:
“You know, there was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans is weakening again and how the whites in both states (Indiana and North Carolina) who had not completed college were supporting me and in independents, I was running even with him and doing even better with Democratic-leaning independents. I have a much broader base to build a winning coaltion on.”
I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Both Clinton and Obama are tired, so sometimes they say things they don’t mean.
But Joe Conason brings up some good points:
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?
While I still cannot believe she actually intended any such nefarious meaning, she seemed to be equating “hard-working Americans” with “white Americans.” Which is precisely what Wallace and his cohort used to do with their drawling refrain about welfare and affirmative action. 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.
Hard-working, white Americans. Geez. Hillary, are you trying use a Nixonian Southern strategy to increase the bigot vote in WV and KY to give you an even larger win in those primaries? Was that some kind a dog whistle being blown at Appalachian lower-income people to indicate that it’s better to vote for a white woman who supports hard-working white Americans rather than the lazy Black people and people who were fortunate enough to make the effort to get through college?
Oh, and Hillary, you won Indiana by one point in an election day that came on the heels of the Rev. Wright scandal. Limbaugh told his minions to vote for you, and it seems that might have had an effect, since 17 percent of GOPers who voted for Clinton in the Hoosier primary said that they would vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee.
Hillary, it’s just sad that if you win the nomination, it’s unlikely that African Americans or those horrible well-educated liberals will support you in great numbers.
We don’t like being insulted.
5 responses so far ↓
zenyenta // May 9, 2008 at 12:05 pm
It’s insulting to anyone who has believed in what the Democratic party has stood for since the Nixonian Southern Strategy claimed racists for the Republicans. It’s shocking. It’s beyond the pale. (Not sure whether pun is intended or not.)
For the first time in this race I’m thinking that there had better be a good opponent for her in the primaries should she decide to run for the Senate again. I think she just made herself unacceptable as a representative of New York.
fpteditors // May 9, 2008 at 7:56 pm
There are trillions of dollars invested in pipelines, tankers, refineries, highways, sprawl, coal mines… etc. The carbon-auto lobby cannot afford any challenge to its power. They don’t trust Obama to keep their subisidies coming. They will nuke anyone, literally, who seriously challenges them.
Laura // May 9, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Zen brings up a point I’ve been wondering about: whether it’s possible that Hillary will cast herself in such a negative light that her Senate seat is in peril.
raford // May 10, 2008 at 3:39 am
Zen, are there any good potential candidates in NY to run against Hillary?
All I know is that Spitzer would be a bad choice.
Gob Bluth // May 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Nita Lowey ought to run - that seat was hers until Mrs. Clinton decided she wanted to be from New York.
Leave a Comment