Comments on: This Won’t Go Over Well at All

By: Fred

Fred — Fri, 09 May 2008 00:12:38 +0000

In other words: “Nominate me because I’m white.”

Good lord. She has stopped being subtle, and is now openly running a racist campaign.

She’s basically saying: “He’s black and white people won’t vote for him, but they’ll vote for me because of my skin color.”

Please, Hillary, drop out now before you do any more damage to your reputation – or to America.

By: Mark

Mark — Thu, 08 May 2008 17:49:28 +0000

1. (Shameless self-promotion): As I wrote in my most recent post, the divide in the Democratic party right now doesn’t mean that Obama can’t build a better coalition than Hillary can. What it does mean, however, is that the divide in the Democratic Party right now means that whoever wins the nomination will have to find a new winning coalition than the one that (hasn’t really) worked for Democrats in the recent past. In removing the group of Hillary absolutists from the Dem coalition, the Dem/pro-Obama coalition will become much more appealing to other groups not currently in the Dem coalition (or even, for that matter the Republican coalition). Indeed, it is my argument that this all raises the specter of a broad anti-authoritarian coalition, as the most anti-Obama Hillary supporters are by most measures the pro-authority anchor of the Democratic Party.
2. (Not shameless self-promotion): the reaction to these comments over the next few days will be telling…will Hillary take as much flak for them as Obama took for his “bitter” comments? If not, then I’d say it’s pretty obvious that the idea floated by Clinton supporters that the media is biased against her is totally ridiculous. This is not to say that her remarks were per se racist (as I mentioned in my comment yesterday, the “-ism” meme is thrown around way too easily); but it is to say that looking at the “bitter” remarks and Clinton’s remarks above, Clinton’s remarks are facially far more offensive by most standards.
3. This is going to get me accused of being elitist, but I wanted to also comment on the part of her quote where she brags about her support from “whites who had not completed college.” Now, I think our back and forth on the education debate this winter showed that I don’t think college makes a person any more or less valuable, and that I think there is as much, maybe more, social value in being a good auto mechanic as there is in being a good lawyer (actually my profession is too often a net-negative for society). Nor do I think that a less-educated person is incapable of grasping important concepts about government and policy, although it is certainly much less likely. But what, exactly, makes a less educated person with no education whatsoever in economics/political theory/civics/history/physcial science a coalition member worth bragging about as demonstrating why you’d be a better Presidential candidate? There are few things more disingenuous than the frequent argument of politicians that their support from “working people” makes them inherently more capable of governing well than someone whose support is drawn from the more-educated classes. We are allegedly electing the leader of our country here (though I am morally opposed to the concept that a President really can be my “leader”)…should we really value the opinion of Joe from Mayberry on the gas tax more than we should value the opinion of economists? To steal an increasingly popular phrase: “this way lies madness.” Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

By: DrGail

DrGail — Thu, 08 May 2008 14:13:25 +0000

Perhaps what we find so troubling about this is that, within our own party, a coalition is being threatened. We chuckled with vast appreciation as the Republican primary dynamics seemed to drive a wedge between the neocons, the fiscal conservatives, and the social conservatives.

What I fear we’re seeing here is a wedge being driven between the blue-collar and minority demographics which largely fuel the party. It’s interesting that I almost added “labor” to the “blue-collar” label, but in fact the unions are largely split between the two candidates. What’s interesting about that is that we appear to have let Hillary define that demographic as being working-class white voters, rather than properly regarding it under the heading of labor. But I digress. . .

So right now this coalition is being strained to the max, due to a combination of Obama’s race and Hillary’s blatant appeals to (what you so aptly described as) the Archie Bunker demographic. I worry that we won’t be able to repair the rifts. An appeal to economic issues is the obvious approach to take, but that necessarily brings up latent concerns about affirmative action and reverse discrimination.

It’s ironic that Bill Clinton’s focus when he was running for president — “a rising tide lifts all boats” — may show the greatest promise here, and yet Hillary has apparently positioned herself to reject that focus and further exacerbate the fissures between the two key demographics.