Edwards: Clinton didn't choose words well on race

WASHINGTON — Former Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said Sunday that Hillary Rodham Clinton probably didn't choose her words carefully when she suggested Barack Obama was losing the white vote.

Edwards also hedged on whether he might still endorse one of his former rivals, but said he thinks Obama will be the nominee. He cautioned that in Clinton's continued push for the nomination, she "has to be really careful" not to damage the Democratic Party's prospects in November.

"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 dropped out of 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 pledged to stay in the race after losing to Obama by a wide margin in North Carolina and barely winning in Indiana, which cemented his status as the front-runner. She touts her overall electability in a general election and, pointing to demographics, she 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.

On an endorsement, Edwards said he "might" still, 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.

[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.

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

See M.S. Bellows, Jr.'s Profile

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...

[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.

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

See M.S. Bellows, Jr.'s Profile

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?

[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.

[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.

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

See M.S. Bellows, Jr.'s Profile

I'm confused: how does this comment help the Democrats beat McCain?

[ZimboChick]

Whizkid is not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[ladyfractal]

Miccanab:

Welcome to Democratic politics in America. There is not a single Clinton supporter here who, had Newt Gingrich said that the SAME words as Senator Clinton did who would not have jumped up and called Gingrich on it.

Your last sentence is all too true as well. In order for Barack Obama to be acceptable he has to not mention race any more than is ABSOLUTELY necessary. I am convinced that if Hillary Clinton slipped up and called Barack Obama 'boy' most Clinton supporters would give him a free pass on that too...and, again, NONE Of this is to suggest that either Senator Clinton or her supporters are racist. Only that they see racism as something that Republicans do and NOT something that Democrats do...at least vis a vis their candidate.

Cheers
LF

[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.

[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!!!!

[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.

[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.

[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...

[StillAmused]

To all the earnest, nit-picking commenters who follow:

It was a TELEPHONE interview... probably the 20th Clinton had done that day. It wasn't a prepared speech with every nuance calculated in advance. Her haltingly throwing in "hard-working" is campaign Tourette's, a visceral resort to boilerplate campaign-speak ("get up every day, work hard, play by the rules", yadda-yadda).

... unless you're fencepost-stupid enough to believe Clinton was thinking: "I know what I'll do today -- I'll piss off one of the MOST important constituencies out there, one that's always supported me in the past, really poke 'em in the eye in the national media and hope no one notices."

The "race card" was -- regrettably -- in play the day Obama announced. Without the sweaty vigilance of "thought police" and PC-patrolmen like some below, and the brain-dead press that beats the subject to death every friggin' day, we might have actually gotten past it by now.

Wonder how any of us would fare under a 24-hour electron scanning microscope... remember the "bitter" comment?

Shit happens. Sadly for both candidates, there's a reliable swarm of flies waiting to land on it and feast.

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

See M.S. Bellows, Jr.'s Profile

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.

[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.

[lakeqi]

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

[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"

[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"?

[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.

[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 i