Hillary Clinton can't say that, can she?

You might not remember this, but I remember quite a few people telling me that Ronald Reagan couldn't get elected. He was simply too conservative, etc. I also seem to remember Reagan being a classy guy and not responding in kind to various provocations like Voodoo Economics. The Democrats should pick the candidate that they prefer and win or lose based on that choice. I suppose how you feel about Sen Clinton's remarks depends upon the politicians you admire and what you admire them for. I also remember Ford using this not electable argument against Reagan in 76. That worked out real well.

Actually, I think she is saying there are too many racists that are Independants. The Democrats will vote true blue and the Republicans will vote royal red. It is those Indigo Independants that must be wooed, and she is saying THEY are the racists who simply will not back black (or brown). I am not sure she is correct, but if it makes her feel like she will get the support she needs - who is to say no?

I think it depends on how much substance you want to place behind the charge. If we are talking about 5-10% of people who will never vote for a black candidate then I think it invites you being called their advocate. It is much like the question of how Ron Paul should handle the endorsements offered by a number of questionable groups. In the dominant culture, I think there is a certain disdain for not doing things the right way, and I think many people see appealing to the fact that Obama is black as not fighting the right way. While these things can get to the absurd level - for example getting grief for not affirming a person who had facial scarring from a disease isn't going to win a beauty pageant - I think claiming America isn't ready for black president is one of those cases where you can't just appeal to obviousness.

Of course Clinton will claim his policy proposals are what is harming his appeal to the white vote. This is a difficult claim to make when there aren't too many real policy differences between them. As for reality, I think Obama will be weak in the elderly vote in part due to race but largely due to a young, change campaign does not appeal well to older voters. This will probably make Virginia and Colorado Democratic wins, but make Florida uncompetitive. I would be shocked however if Obama lost the elderly vote 65/35 come the general election.

It seems to me that Hillary is basing this on states where only registered Democrats can vote in the primary. Here in Georgia, where we don't have to declare party allegience, the majority of Independents voting in the Democratic primary went for Obama. He's just the more appealing candidate - for better or worse, he sets out a far different vision than what we have had in the past eight - sixteen years and he gets people excited and interested. He comes across like a black Bobby Kennedy - and I hope he doesn't share the same fate. Personally, I think it is going to be a fascinating general election season - Obama has been able to survive the nasty negative ads that Sen. Clinton has been airing and it looks like the negative ads aren't as effective as they have been in the past. I just hope that the Hillary partisans can get over their disappointment and actually work for and vote for Barack Obama as president - it will be a breath fo fresh air and an interesting signal to the rest of the world if we elect someone so far from being a "inside the beltway" candidate.

The Clinton campaign has officially Jumped the Shark...

"Of course people are going to go for Obama at a caucus, it's hip, it's cool, and it's not racist to do so."

Exactly. It's not that it's racist for Democrats to vote for Clinton; it's that publicly supporting Obama is "proof" that you're not racist, like wearing the AIDS ribbon "proves" you're not homophobic. The polls clearly show that in the secrecy of the ballot box, people are less enthusiastic about Obama than they claim to be in public. If I were a Democrat wanting my party to win, that would concern me.

If the general election is close, we could easily get another "Dewey Defeats Truman" situation, with exit polls showing significantly more votes for Obama than he's really getting.

By the way, is there a rule that says if one candidate reaches a certain number of presumptive delegates for the convention, it's over and all other candidates have to quit? I thought a lead in delegates made the candidate the presumptive winner, but was far from official, and that in a close race, there could be a lot of bargaining before someone was actually chosen.

As someone who's praying for a Ron Paul coup at the GOP convention, I can't exactly criticize Clinton for holding on until the bitter end.

Rod wrote: "Anything she says now, even if there's truth in it, can only hurt Obama."

From Hillary's perspective, what's wrong with hurting Obama? She is perfectly willing to do lasting damage not just to Obama but to the D party as a whole if they don't give her what she wants.

>>>
John McCain has always voted pro-life. You can look it up. And probably should.
Posted by: Rod Dreher | May 8, 2008 4:23 PM
>>>

You misunderstand - although it would be good general election strategy to play down his anti-abortion record in order to attract liberal boomers, the Religious Right wing of the GOP will require that he swear to uphold the rights of the fertilized ovum.

I agree Mhoram. It's funny but when I say positive things about Clinton when talking to people I can't help but get a "oh no he's racist" vibe from people even though I don't mention Obama at all. It's really irritating. Obama is just too liberal for me, Clinton is more toward the centre where I like my politicians.

People like Andrew Sullivan have been insinuating -- if not flat out saying, that voting for Clinton means one is racist. It's preposterous. He's gone completely crazy for Obama, he's in some sort of trance under the spell of a cult leader's personality. I have a feeling that if Obama told him to jump off a bridge he'd do it. I recall he had a similar crush on W in 1999 though it wasn't quite as pronounced. Yeaaaaaaa.

I know that Clinton isn't honest, I know she's a liar, I know she's corrupt, and I know that Bill is a sleazeball. But I'm voting for the person I think can get the things that are important to me DONE, not who is honest. Honesty is nice but look what happened to our last honest president -- Jimmy Carter. Got ZERO done. Nice chap, terrible president. I fear Obama may be Carter II.

It looks like Al Gore isn't the only Democrat out there in the business of expressing inconvenient truths. I don't see anything factually incorrect in Hillary's comments, though I agree that there's not much use in saying this sort of thing now, when all it might do is hurt Obama. I've been a staunch Hillary supporter throughout the primaries, but if Obama is the nominee, it behooves Democrats to focus on doing what's best for the Party's electoral chances in November.

Rod: "It is obviously a dangerous thing to say, and frankly a depressing one, because it reduces Hillary to arguing that she's a better choice than Obama because there are too many racist Democrats in the party."

I can think of a lot of reasons why working class whites (or anyone else for that matter) would support Hillary over Obama. And after the so-called "bittergate" comments, some of those reasons should be obvious...

Phil, Clinton isn't honest, I know she's a liar, I know she's corrupt..But I'm voting for the person I think can get the things that are important to me DONE, not who is honest.

Yep. Mussolini made the trains run on time...

I would question the underlying assumption: that working-class whites who vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary because they like her *better* will NOT vote for Obama in November should he be the nominee. Listen to interviews with those voters -- many of them decided late in the game, which means they don't hate Obama, they just prefer Clinton. Nothing wrong with that. That doesn't predict what they will do in the fall. I *don't* believe those polls that suggest huge numbers of Clinton and Obama supporters would switch to John McCain if their preferred candidate were elected. That will only be true for voters who don't vote on issues *at all*. Here's why:

Right now, McCain looks great to voters who are mad at "the other" Democrat. (Be that Obama or Clinton.) He's uncontested, he's doing presidential looking things, he's making fine speeches with no one to say him nay. I'm always amazed at how many people think he's not very conservative. He's like Obama was a few months ago -- God's apparent gift to independents. (If only it weren't for that pesky war stance of his...) By November, the whole picture will have changed. Both McCain and Obama will be bloodied and looking a lot more human. Then it will come down to issues and like-ability as it always does. Age may play a role as well, for good or ill. I think many of those working class white folks will decide to back Obama after all, based on the war, the economy, and dislike for Bush. Some won't, but I think many will.

Oh, and did anyone else catch the little insinuation in Hillary's comment that hardworking people are white? I heard it immediately. I don't think she meant that intentionally, but she didn't correct it.

David White writes "From everything I've read, African-American supporters of Obama are more likely to stay home in November if he doesn't get the nomination (esp. if there is a perception that he was denied it unfairly), than women and working-class white are to stay home if Hillary doesn't get the nomination."

I am not so sure I agree with that. African-Americans are more solidly democratic with no where else to go, or so they think, than women and working-class whites.

Why wouldn't we want Michelle Obama for first lady? What's the matter with her, Jack? She's no nanny Nancy Reagan or country club wife like Pickles--Laura Bush. She's no Napolian like Hillary. But so what?

We White people can stay home all we like. It's because of us that we've gotten into the trouble we have with Bush.

Stay home and cut your own throats, I say.

I'm not staying home just to satisfy some White ancestral rage over.....what pray-tell?

I'd rather have the Obamas than John McCain. But then I am not one of those Whites living in Kansas or actively voting for my own financial demise by voting for McBush--John McCain.