America is in deeper trouble than I have thought if Hillary Clinton's case for remaining in the Democratic primary race rests on her assessment of her opponent's shortcomings. The junior senator from New York told USA Today (actually the day before yesterday): "Senator Obama's support among working, hard working Americans, white Americans is weakening again."
Take it from this very hard working, very white American that a lot of us are sick of these tactics. Bush at least pretended to be a "uniter, not a divider." When the Clintons act this way, there's no pretense, but the damage is comparable.
Americans overwhelmingly want the country to change direction. They want to see it strong and prosperous again. The special interests and their failed model of economic and financial globalization stand in the way. How can Democrats possibly expect to pull off major changes in the face of such opposition by dividing the country further?
Friday, May 9, 2008
SUBTRACTING BY DIVIDING
Labels: Presidential Elections
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I think that Hilary's main point is that she has won the big primaries in States where a Democrat has to win to win the nomination. Her point is valid: Barak Obama's wins in the South and in rural States don't matter. He won't win them in the general election. He needs CA, NY, NJ, etc etc. Her basis of support in those States are middle and working class Americans; not white liberals and minorities. Don't take Hilary out of context. She is not a racist. The Democratic Party will regret not nominating her come November when the GOP attack machine gets to work on new-to-national politics Obama.ReplyDelete
Anonymous misses the point. Who do you think Democrats in CA, NY, NJ, etc etc will vote for in November? John McCain?! Obama is playing his cards right by not antagonizing Hillary's core supporters. He has not encouraged her to drop out and he is not aggressively attacking her. He will win those voters in November while bringing to the booths new voters and even some Republicans. I just hope that there is some substance behind the hype and that he will support some of the fine ideas espoused by Charlie Blum on this blog!ReplyDelete
Look, Obama already has some serious problems ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014.html?hpid=topnews ). He doesn't have a broad range of support. He does well in caucuses b/c his supporters are enthusiastic. Clinton enjoys the support of the 'silent majority' of Democratic backers. Obama is a mistake of McGovernesque proportions.ReplyDelete
Anonymous, Obama is NEVER going to win over those voters and Clinton probably wouldn't either. Do you harken back to the Solid South days when Democrats won over racist voters? If the 'Silent Majority' of the Democratic Party has a problem with Obama's skin color, then I am switching to the Green Party. It's funny that you call him McGovernesque because I am from South Dakota and still feel that McGovern would have made a helluva better President than Nixon did.ReplyDelete
Democrats will vote for Obama and so will a wide swath of Independents and even some Republicans. We shouldn't oppose a solid candidate because a tiny minority of bigots won't consider a candidate due to the amount of melatonin produced by his pineal gland.
Oh please, neither Hillary nor I is a racist. I merely posted the article to highlight that Obama has a problem among blue collar white voters. Like it or not, they are a demographic every bit as important as the youth vote, the hispanic vote, and the urban black vote. If Obama can't motivate them to the polls, he will have trouble. As for McGovern; the guy didn't even win South Dakota. What does that tell you? Yes, Nixon was a disaster but the Democrats should have picked Humphrey or ANYONE else for that matter.ReplyDelete
Those white collar workers will vote for Obama in the Fall. They won't vote for McCain because he's anti-labor, pro-immigration, pro-free trade, etc etc. Bush won West Virginia by convincing voters during great economic times that values issues mattered more than pocket book matters. McCain, with the exception of abortion, is a social libertarian and can't score points like Bush can. McCain is not born again nor is he a moral crusader. He won't beat Obama on the pocketbook issues because he stance on the economy is reminiscient of Hoover's.ReplyDelete
Now that Bob Barr is entering the race on the Libertarian Ticket, McCain will have some competition from traditional Republicans. I wonder if he can pander to both the religious right while convincing the libertarian North East that he is a libertarian conservative as well. It will be hard to square that circle.ReplyDelete