Edwards: Clinton didn't choose words well on race

WASHINGTON — Former Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday that he thinks Barack Obama will be the party's presidential nominee and that Hillary Rodham Clinton must be careful not to damage the party's prospects in November as she continues her campaign.

"I know how hard it is to get up and go out there every day, speak to the media, speak to crowds, when people are urging you to get out of the race. I mean, it's a very hard place to be in. But she's shown a lot of strength about that," said Edwards, a former North Carolina senator who exited the race in January.

"But I think the one thing that she has to be careful about ... going forward, is that, if she makes the case for herself, which she's completely entitled to do, she has to be really careful that she's not damaging our prospects, the Democratic Party, and our cause, for the fall," he said in a taped interview broadcast on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Clinton says she's staying in the race despite losing to Obama by a wide margin in North Carolina and barely winning in Indiana, which helped cement his status as the front-runner. She touts her overall electability in a general election and, pointing to demographics, recently told USA Today in an interview:

"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working _ hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Some accused Clinton of reintroducing race into the campaign. Edwards seemed to give her a pass.

"She's in a very tough, very competitive race that's been going on a long, long time. And you know, she didn't probably _ I'm sure she feels like she didn't choose her words very well there," he said.

"What I think is, at the end of the day, when this is over _ and I think it is likely, certainly, at this point, that Senator Obama will be the nominee _ that the Democrats will unite. We'll all be behind our nominee. And we'll be out there campaigning our hearts out," Edwards said.

David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign strategist, disputed Clinton's assertion.

Axelrod said Obama and Clinton split Indiana voters who make $50,000 a year or less, and that Obama performed better among non-college-educated voters there. He said the same was true in North Carolina. Both states voted last week.

"The words weren't well chosen, but the thesis was wrong," Axelrod said on "Fox News Sunday.

Edwards, meanwhile, said he "might" still endorse a candidate, but "I don't think it's a big deal, to be honest with you."

Comments

[Maifmart]

Edwards said in the debates that if people were supporting him because he was a white man he didn't want their votes, as opposed to Hillary's obvious pandering to them and dependence on any subtle racism they may still harbor to get their vote. The irony is that should some miracle occur and Hillary get the nomination she would more easily regain the black vote than get these white blue collar democrats who've elected Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushs.

[ReportThis]

Edwards needs to get off the fence and endorse Obama. Simply criticizing Hillary's tactics doesn't impress anyone or accomplish anything.

[aurobindo]

Are we all sure that Hillary - with her trenchant advisers, as well as her husband, not positioning
herself for running as an independent in the tradition of Lieberman. Given Lieberman's comments
implying Hamas leanings on the part of Obama (despite his strong commentary to the opposite)
as well as his strong support of Hillary, it is possible that these "independents" may see their main
chance to march straight down the middle, attracting both Democrat and Republican voters?
Are these the real back channel communications? Is Mark Penn of "slice and dice" sociology,
predicting that she can attract sufficeint numbers of population groups (white male, female,
elderly, Hispanic, disaffected evangelicals) to give her a real chance at a win. The vice preseidential
candidate in such an endeavor - the overweeningly ambitious Joe Lieberman, who brings with him
his own republocrat networks.

[Oldchef]

Interesting. I don't think there's any possibility of HRC running as an Independent, and i think Lieberman is more likely to be McCain's VP choice. on the other hand, if somehow she should steal the nomination, I could see Obama winning as an Independent.

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

Both are too committed to actually becoming President, and Obama at least is too committed to seeing the Democrats in office, to run as Independents. Obama's running for the 2008 nomination. Clinton's running for the 2012 nomination and might even still be running for the 2008 nomination, though I have difficulty seeing how she can still believe that. No one on Earth outside AIPAC believes Lieberman has any influence anymore...

By the way, don't forget that Ned Lamont has endorsed Obama, not Clinton, and Lieberman has been slamming Obama. Those are great credentials for Barack to have...

[Independent007]

Although I would love to see Lieberman as McCain's VP, two old guys running around, the better choice for McCain is Huckabee. Huckabee is a true conservative and would help bring in those votes for McCain.

Plus, Huckabee is likeable, except when he talks about how evil big government is. I don't trust him as far as I can throw a stone.

[RomeyDA]

Good for you John
Hillary and McCain both PLAY the race card
Mr Mcain vote on New Orlean and his PAID advisor John Quinn
Hillary and Mr McCain are not alternatives to Bush

[Raisean]

My problem with everyone saying oh she didn't mean to say this or mean to say that is the fact that she's not saying anything at all! Where are Hillary's comments and restatements? I Honestly believe that every word she said she actually meant, and for that I can never forgive her! She'll forever be on my bad list.

[lakeqi]

Clinton and her minions keep missing the point, which is why they are where they are. SO let me explain it to them one more time: its not that mentioned white people, its how she created a heirarchy- "working, hardworking, white people" . She's saying that hardworking people are white. Its amazing to me that everyone is willing to let this go as a slip of the tongue or an innocent mistake. She emphasized this line of thinking later on in the interview after this particular quote. Theres a reason why she's the most hated woman in America, she's scum, she'll do anything to achiever her objectives and Obama would have to be out of his mind to put her on the ticket. If he asks, she'll probably spit in his face.

[stepintothelight]

I wouldn't nominate her to clean up after the toilet cleaners!!!

[abby4ever]

***I'm sure she feels like she didn't choose her words very well there," he said.
Oh, yes, she did; she's a lawyer and they always choose their words well. Unless they're drunk, and she wasn't.

[likeicare]

A little slow on the uptake, huh, John?

[Trinidad707]

According to Stuart Levine, a former Rezko associate turned prosecution witness, both Barack Obama and his wife Michelle were among the guests

at a April 3, 2004 party at Rezko's Chicago home for Nadhmi Auchi. A great deal of Mr. Nadhmi Auchi's money was made doing business with the regime of Saddam Hussein At that time much of it under the table.

[Oldchef]

Guilt by association again? This isn't the 1950s thank God, and these attempts to push that theme don't work like they used to.

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

Oh my God! Obama's brother in law is the new coach of the Oregon State basketball team. Back in the civil war era Oregon had a law banning black people from living there. Louis Armstrong was black. Louis Armstrong smoked dope. Barack Obama's a pothead!

But more importantly: how exactly did your comment help the Democratic nominee beat McCain?

[whizkid]

John King at CNN can point at a map and say, "Thats a black district. Obama."
But if the Clintons talk about demographics they're racists.
The biggest crock of this whole campaign.

[RandyRP]

HRC is the biggest crock of this campaign. Yes, the media has talked more frankly about AA support for Obama, but don't conflate the issues in order to suggest that Clinton's "talk about demogrpahics" was an acceptable way to do it. She has been called to task for they WAY she talked about it. Just like she was called to task for threatening to "obliterate" Iran. In life, it is not always what you say, but who you say it that matters. She's a bugnler and the whole world is getting to she it.

[JamieStarr]

John King is not a presidential candidate.

Hillary is not an analyst.

She should be above that, but it's obvious now that Hillary is not above anything.

The biggest crock of this campaign is Hillary's fake dedication to FL and MI. I wish she would have been a champion of the "disenfranchised" before she was losing.

[Faxus]

So tru, so true. they think they have knocked Hillary out of the race, but for some odd reason the media doesn't seem to really know her. I think the have the hots for Obama. Great reason to elect him, right?

[candyc]

Until Super Tuesday, on every station, as well as in every newspaper, Clinton was ALWAYS referred to as "Front-runner Hillary Clinton".
The MSM has no soul. They just want something to blather about. It's up to US, folks.
The SuperDelegates can see where this is going. They will end it in the next 2 weeks.

She, in my opinion, has run a terrible campaign and would be a terrible choice for Obama as VP.

Now "her team" says the required delegate count has changed? She acts like that
spoiled little kid who always changed the rules when they lost a game. "Oh! Let's make it 5 out of 7" "Let's make it 7 out of 10".

Please! Supers! Declare today!!!!

[vippy]

From what I have seen the MSM loves Clinton, they don't point out the bad of things
with her but the press been all over Obama with the bad stuff like Rev. Wright,
racism, etc. Sickening. It is time to elaborate on Hillary and the pending lawsuit,
her ties to REZKO, her religious cult, her anti-semite statements before the senate
election, etc. Her baggage is a mile long. Her campaign style is yesterday's attacks!
She represents OLD STYLE POLITICS in Washington.

[Micaanab]

You Clinton people seem to think when ever the press speaks about race, Obama is saying it.
Clinton, with her own mouth speaks of race and when she is called on it, all the sudden Obama is guilty of it.

Then you feel the press is easier on Obama after he was hit hard with rev Wright, the questions of his true religion, a flag pin, his middle name, etc etc etc.

It seems to be the opposite when it comes to sexism. Hillery can speak all she wants about how hard it is being a woman in a mans world but if Obama speaks of how hard it is to be a black man in a white mans world, he will be frowned upon.

[djelimon]

What if John King points at a map and says

"That's a hard working district. A white district. Clinton"

Clear inference that whites (and only whites) are hard working.

[suntzu]

As far as I know Larry King is not running for president.

The statistics are one thing. For a candidate to say "vote for me because the statistics show that Obama can't win the white votes," then that is playing the race card. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

[benwha]

whizkid isn't interested in understanding anything. he is so biased i think he is paid by the Clinton campaign to post his thoughts or whatever you want to call them. That is the best case scenario, the worst case is he is just your typical stuck with one position person that is the problem with this country. He is a "my gut tells me this and there is no shred of evidence that will ever change my mind, and all evidence points to me being right at all times" type of dude.

[StillAmused]

Clinton "didn't choose her words carefully when she suggested Barack Obama was losing the white vote."?

Actually, she didn't choose the AP's words carefully. She just made the mistake of quoting them.

To wit:

Obama's appeal to working-class whites faltering, polls show

By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press Writer -- May 4, 12:09 AM EDT

"In an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll in April, 53 percent of whites who have not completed college viewed Obama unfavorably, up a dozen percentage points from November. During that period, the numbers viewing Clinton and Republican candidate John McCain negatively have stayed about even.

"The April poll - conducted before the Pennsylvania contest - also showed an overwhelming preference for Clinton over Obama among working-class whites. They favored her over him by 39 percentage points, compared to a 10-point Obama lead among white college graduates. Obama also did worse than Clinton among those less-educated voters when matched up against Republican candidate John McCain."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_WORKING_CLASS_WHITES?SITE=DCUSN&SECTION=TOP_STORIES&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Details, details...

[Mesaywar]

Details, details indeed.

"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working _ hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how the, you know, whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

That's what Hillary actually said. Adding a link to the story does not make your implying that Hillary was simply taking a near-verbatim quote from the article any less dishonest.

Consider the following;
"There was just an AP article posted that found how Senator Obama's support among working white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

See the difference? I doubt that anyone would have had a problem with that statement.
It would have spoken to the "I'm winning the white people vote" premise of her campaign, but without the code speak and uncharacte­ristically halting emphasis it does not carry the stench of race baiting that her own statement does.


But you know what's really telling? Considering the public and party skewering that she has recieved over the "gaffe," just days before two primaries, has she once said "I misspoke and didn't mean it that way"?

[JWakkaJane]

I was going to say, it sounds like Edwards had something interesting and apropos to say, and the media drowned it out with some kinda race-baiting bullshit,

then, after reading the above comment (attributing the source of Clinton's comments about white voters to an AP article) . . . I forgot what I was going to say, . . . because I noticed under the headline here, THIS article is from the AP.

Somehow the only non-bullshit point covered in this report on Edwards' CBS interview almost got lost in all that, didn't it?

Why couldn't they have left all that bullshit out, including the bullshit headline? Why not:

'EDWARDS CAUTIONS CLINTON ABOUT TACTICS' :
On CBS's "Face the Nation" broadcast this Sunday, Edwards said:

"the one thing that [Clinton] has to be careful about ... is that, . . . she has to be really careful that she's not damaging our prospects, the Democratic Party, and our cause, for the fall"

[lakeqi]

hmmm, I don;t think I saw the word "hardworking" in the AP article. Damn details again.

[Oldchef]

Has no one else pointed out that the article is quoting polls taken before the Pennsylvania primary when the MSM was full of the "bitter" controversy and Rev. Wright's little film clip was running 24/7? Seems to me the Indiana results last week show that this "white working class" prejudice was easing then and is easing even more week by week as people look closely at the candidate and what he says, as oppose to what others say about him.

[M.S. Bellows, Jr. - Huffpost Blogger]

It wasn't just the AP interview; her campaign advisers keep using the term "the white electorate" as the reason Obama "can't win." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/m.s.-bellows/post-indiana-clinton-camp_b_100708.html

Details, details...

But either way, I'm confused: how does your comment help the Democratic nominee beat McCain?

[StillAmused]

You've posed your specious, inane question often enough -- just on this page -- to convince me... you ARE confused.

This is a PRIMARY (sometimes referred to as a "contest"). As primaries go, this one has been a powder puff... or are you too young to know that?

How does fighting it out in the playoffs help ANY team to beat the one it'll face in the final? Or should a daily popularity poll determine which teams should bow out politely so, y'know, the opponent in the final won't have a leg up?

Your "question" is insulting to the process. This ain't American Idol.

[rzan]

My big concern is that Hillary is going to win big in Kentucky and WV, and the MSM is going to go on and on about the tide turning for Hillary, and the pundits are going to BS nonstop. What a major headache. Of course, Obama will win in Oregon and Montana and South Dakota, but not before we have to listen to a whole lot of bulls**t from the media. June 3 won't come too soon.

[stringer]

Couldn't agree more.

I mean, no offense, but West Virginia is about as stacked against him as you can get. It's a wondeful state, been there, they have beautiful cities like Huntington, but some of it's citizens just aren't progressive thinking.

Put it like this: It makes Ohio look like San Francisco, in terms of political views.

When JFK had to win it or leave the race in 1960, his father told him to not even bother and just bought it off. It's just not always the most receptive state to change. And when you have the 3rd oldest population in America, it's just hard for a young, half white/half black candidate.

[YellowPanties]

If those voters in West Virginia will not vote for Obama, they will never vote for a black man. Obama couldn't be any more sincere, articulate or intelligent, and they still won't vote for him. The people over 60 just don't get it, but maybe they'll change their mind when they see how good things turn out under President Obama.

[Faxus]

How about impossible? When things don't go right for you folks you sure do get upset but you didn't seem to be troubled by 8 years of Bush. Well get ready for 8 years of McCain. I have heard that he is simply tickled to death that he's going to run against Obama. He knew he didn't stand a chance against Hillary but when she walks out of the DNC with half the party, McCain will be in seventh heaven!

[mkruger214]

you are 100% right - we'll be hearing a lot of "why can't Obama close the deal?". He already has, they just won't recognize it.

[Faxus]

Because he is missing about 25 million voters and cannot win without them. Superdelegates aside, Obama has to convince ALL of Hillary's supporters to vote for him. Not half, not a third, simply all of them. Do you think you can convince me or my friends or my family? I think not. McCain's the winner by 25 million votes, the biggest landslide in history and a mandate for the conservative agenda. Thanks Obama, you made their plan work perfectly.

[Ramus]

you are correct about this..but the TV stations need to manufacture a contest when there is none there...so they can sell more Ciallis or cars ..so they can keep those viewers in suspense and tuning in. The white working class voters will vote Republican anyway unless they lose their houses and their kids come home from Iraq in boxes ..then maybe they'd vote Democratic.

[Micaanab]

You are very right about this. I believe this is why Clinton is somewhat backing off. She continues to campaign while Obama is moving on. Obama supporters have nothing left to prove so many will stay home. Clinton supporters still do want to prove something. They will be out in full force.

This will give Clinton her argument that voters have changed their minds.
Clinton could care less for the will of the people. She will use trickery to insert doubt.

[suntzu]

If Clinton wins WV by 65-35, she will get 66% of the 39 delegates. That breaks out to 26 for her, 13 for Obama. This is a net gain of 13 for Clinton. Obama is ahead in the pledged delegate count by nearly 180. So with WV's votes counted, his margin will still be 166 delegates.

In Kentucky the story is a bit worse for Obama since there are 59 delegates there, with Clinton ahead by the same margin. So between WV and KY Obama may lose about 33 pledged delegates. Since Obama has usually outperformed the polls my guess is that he will lose by less than 30 delegates between the two states.

On the other hand, Oregon, Montana, and SD are favorable to Obama, and should be able to make up whatever he lost in WV and KY and then some.

With superdelegates moving to Obama, the numbers are getting worse for Clinton, not better. He is currently ahead in the popular vote as well as the superdelegate vote, and oodles more campaign money.

But it is true, Obama will need to take his lumps in WV and KY. But the basic scenario will not change, Clinton's chances are rated between 2.5 - 5% of winning the nomination by odds makers.

Finally, Edwards is wrong when he says Clinton misspoke. It is a deliberate strategy to pander to the white vote.

[the964kid]

Edwards: how long are you going to wait?? If you're not gonna endorse then stay out of the media circus.

[Faxus]

If you're not for us, well you must be against us... Edwards doesn't like Hillary but Obama doesn't like Edwards. Do you see the problem now?

[obamajusrocks]

what is really interesting is that initially Hilary had most of the African-American support more or less in the bag - and it was Obama who had to grapple with not being black enough, with his core base being rural white folk in small towns.

[Faxus]

No she didn't. That is a fallacy. Black Americans didn't come out for Bill and they didn't come out for Gore or Kerry. They usually don't vote as a bock, in fact they usually don't vote at all. Just wait and see what happens in Florida when McCain wins it. Win Florida, win the election. Don't you folks get it? the dems are toast again because we can't pull ourselves together under one candidate. We are finished after this one. The party will be split for decades and it will never recover. Who could have seen this coming?

[abby4ever]

Hillary?

[CatfishAndGrits]

You are wrong Faxus. Black people do vote, are votes are just not counted (200,000+ votes in Ohio, anyone?). And we do, for the most part, vote as a block which is why Bush won because he was able to siphon off enough blacks. Had Bush failed to garner 10% of the AA vote, he would NOT be president. It made the race so close, that they could fudge the numbers giving Bush the victory. Admittedly, alot of religious blacks fell for G.W. Bush religious rhetoric in 2000, and 2004, but saw his true color during Katrina

While Hillary wasn't getting 90+% of the AA vote, she was getting ~40%, which if she held that margin, she would be the nominee now. Blue collar white workers have NEVER decided an election, they are not a dedicated Democratic constituency. I know all the pundit try to make it so, but the fact is no Democrat wins without the black vote (and soon the hispanic vote) period. That goes for Hillary, and Obama. If you have a majority of the blue collar vote come November, you already start of with ~40%, then the AA vote puts it over 50%. Democrats win the election.

So who ever the Democratic nominee is they will garner 90+% of the AA vote.

[triplbee]

Samantha Powers was correct.