The Card Clinton Is Playing

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Email This Page

Author Message   Tonya "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Tonya Post Number: 7176 Registered: 07-2006 Rating:  Votes: 1 (Vote!) Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 09:16 am:        Eugene Robinson Op-Ed Columnist Washington Post The Card Clinton Is Playing By Eugene Robinson Friday, May 9, 2008; A27 From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That's why she is falling short -- and that's why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines. If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article "that found how Senator Obama's support . . . among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." As a statement of fact, that's debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it's a slap in the face to the party's most loyal constituency -- African Americans -- and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here's what she's really saying to party leaders: There's no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you'll be sorry. How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America. In private conversations last year, several of Clinton's high-profile African American supporters made that same argument to me -- that America wasn't "ready" for a black president, that this simple fact doomed Obama to failure, that a Clinton Restoration was the best result that African Americans could realistically hope for. Polls at the time showed Clinton leading Obama among black voters, a finding that reflected not only Clinton's greater name recognition but also considerable skepticism about a black candidate's ability to draw white support. Obama did prove he could win support from whites, of course, beginning in Iowa. He and Clinton effectively divided the party into demographic constituencies. Among the groups that have tended to vote for Clinton are white voters making less than $50,000 a year; among those who have turned out to vote for Obama are African Americans, whose doubts about his prospects clearly have been allayed. Assuming that Obama is the eventual nominee, he will have some work to do in reuniting the party. But there's no reason to think he won't succeed -- unless Clinton drives a wedge between important elements of the party's historical coalition. Lower-income white Democrats may well defect to John McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee, Clinton is arguing, whereas African Americans -- who have been choosing Obama by 9 to 1 -- are going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Thus, she claims, she can better knit the party back together. Let's examine those premises. These are white Democrats we're talking about, voters who generally share the party's philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn't quite come out and say, is that Obama is black -- and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist. The other notion -- that Clinton could position herself as some kind of Great White Hope and still expect African American voters to give her their enthusiastic support in the fall -- is just nuts. Obama has already won a majority of the Democratic primary contests; within a couple of weeks, he almost certainly will have won a majority of the pledged convention delegates and will be assured of finishing with more of the popular vote. Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, "Nice job, kid, but we can't give you the nomination because, well, you're black. White people might not like that." Clinton's sin isn't racism, it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama. "It's still early," Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down. eugenerobinson@washpost.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/08/AR2008050802807.html   Chrishayden "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Chrishayden Post Number: 6792 Registered: 03-2004 Rating: N/A Votes: 0 (Vote!) Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 11:16 am:        She's gone burn it. She don't give a damn about shit but herself--but, she wouldn' be running for President if she was any other way.   Cynique "Cyniquian" Level Poster Username: Cynique Post Number: 12281 Registered: 01-2004 Rating:  Votes: 1 (Vote!) Posted on Monday, May 12, 2008 - 12:14 pm:        Boy, chrishayden must've spent the week-end glued to the Sunday newsshows with their taking heads, soaking up ideas to call his own, tuning out ones that rain on his parade, pumped up and sweaty and bug-eyed, all ready to come here and do what does best: which is to do a bad job of convincing me that he is an oracle or a seer. To me, he remains a monotonous blow hard who is neither critical or circumspect in his thinking.