Sen. Clinton argues her case in an interview with USA Today, contending in unusually blunt terms that she should be the nominee because whites support her. YouTube audio is posted at left:
"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 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 coalition on....There is a pattern emerging here."
In a conference call yesterday, strategist Geoff Garin also emphasized how well Clinton was doing among white voters. So, it's not coincidence.
There are several problems with the argument. At least some of those white voters support Clinton because they are uncomfortable with a black -- so it's a coalition whose foundation is racial antipathy, which has not historically been a Democratic Party value.
It's not necessarily the best way to argue for the support of undeclared black superdelegates, or for superdelegates whose biggest fear is that handing the nomination to Hillary would drive away the African-American base of the Democratic Party.
In North Carolina, Obama got 37 percent of whites, while Clinton got only 7 percent of blacks. In Indiana, Obama got 40 percent of whites, and Clinton got only 11 percent of blacks. In some states -- Iowa, Wisconsin -- Obama has won both the white and black vote. So if she wants to turn it into a race-based contest -- she comes off as the polarizing candidate, he comes off as the candidate with a broad-based coalition, undercutting her point.
Finally, demographics can be sliced and diced lots of ways. Such as:
In Indiana, Obama won 52 percent of the voters from age 17 to 64. In North Carolina, he won 60 percent of that age group.
Hillary's support is limited to people who will be dead in 20 years. Is that the way to build the future of the Democratic Party?
Comments (3)
She is still in because she actually believes Obama cannot win in Nov. She believes that there is no way a black man can be elected Pres - its a fairy tale.
So now she goes for the nuclear option - to play the race card every way possible to show everyone that white america will not elect him - the fear factor, stirring up hatred, stirring up violence.
Of course she will fail because the party will eventually come to its senses and eject her - but she will do untold damage in the process.
Only the Superdels can prevent this final madness by backing Obama now.
What an incredible embarrassment the Clintons have become for the Democrats. And I'm a Democrat. My goodness, why would HRC have made such a remark about "hard-working people, white people" if not to try to hurt Barack Obama's chances in November. Those New Yorkers who voted for her for Senate in the past should rethink their choice for Senator when she returns to the Senate after losing this race. I don't know if the Democratic Party will survive the Clintons.
What a lot of folks miss is that many votes in favor of Obama have been antiHillary votes and will not necessarily go to Obama in the General election. Hillary is right about the White vote in November ... many Whites and many others have issues about Obama's willingness to protect this Country. Contary to the Polls, National Security is the most important issue. Enonomies have always recovered ... but, what good is any economy if you're afraid to go to a mall for fear of being blown up.