Hillary Said It Wrong But Got It Right About Hard Working, White Americans

If there were ever words that Hillary Clinton should take back it's her retort that hard working whites backed her in the primaries. The implication was that whites are the only ones who work hard. She obviously didn't mean that. Her awkwardly put point was simply that Obama has not cracked the resistance to him of blue collar, rural, and non-college educated, lower income whites.

Obama will try to overcome that resistance by fingering McCain for Bush's economic bumbles. This is the one issue that should resonate with blue collar whites who are hurting more than anyone else from a near decade of bad Republican economic policies. But economic misery hasn't been enough for any Democratic presidential contender or even president to dent that resistance in the past three decades. And Hillary's lousy word play notwithstanding their resistance can't be shrugged off solely as racial bigotry, guns and religion fetishes, and cultural gaps between blue collar whites and blacks and the so-called elite.

Bill Clinton said and did all the right things about the economy and snatched the White House from Bush Sr. in 1992. But he didn't do it by getting a majority of blue collar white votes. Bush Sr. narrowly beat him with them. Four years later, the economy boomed, jobs were plentiful, and Clinton got the credit for this. Yet he still lost to GOP challenger Robert Dole by an even greater margin among blue collar whites than he did to Bush Sr. four years earlier. If women had not turned out in large numbers and voted heavily for him, Dole may well have beat him out, and he would have done it with the massive backing of blue collar whites.

There are two big reasons for the locked in resistance of blue collar white males to Democratic presidential contenders that have been totally missed in all the usual talk about cultural differences and sneaky racism. That is that many of them perceive the messages that GOP male candidates convey and the code words and terms they use to convey them much different than women, blacks and upper income, college educated whites.

GOP presidential candidates and presidents in past decades have at various times skewered social programs and nakedly played the race card in presidential campaigns beginning with Goldwater in 1964. Since then other Republicans at times artfully stoked male rage with racially charged slogans like "law and order," "crime in the streets," "welfare cheats," and "absentee fathers." Bush's John Wayne frontier brashness, and get tough, bring em' on rhetoric in talking about the Iraq and the war against terrorism was calculatingly geared to appeal to supposed male toughness.

The other reason is that Republicans have just as artfully played hard on the anger, frustration, and visceral dislike of many white workers harbor toward government. The angry white male was more than a cleverly coined buzz word in the 1990s to describe the fear, frustration, and the sense that males, particularly white males, were losing ground to minorities and women in the workplace, schools, and in society. The trend toward white male poverty and alienation actually first became evident in the early 1980s when more than 9 million Americans were added to the poverty rolls and more than half were from white, male-headed families. Two decades later, the number of white men in poverty or among lower income wage earners continued to expand. The estimate was that more one in five white males who voted in 2004 made less than $45,000 in household income.

The main culprit was always a big, bloated federal government that tilted unfairly in spending priorities toward social programs at the expense of head of household male wage earners and taxpayers, at least that's how the GOP politicians were able to craft the reason for the anger and alienation that many white males felt toward government and that translated out to even more fear anger and distrust of liberal Democrats.

McCain will again snatch this well-worn page from the GOP playbook, and do what every GOP presidential candidate has done going back to Reagan and that's tag Obama as a far out left liberal who's wildly out of touch with and even threatens blue collar white males. He'll endlessly cite Obama's moderately liberal voting record and statements on abortion, taxes, and judicial appointments. Republican strategists are rubbing their hands in giddy anticipation that the freshly minted "Hillary Democrats" (blue collar whites that traditionally vote Democratic) are very much in play for McCain.

The idea is to bag the blue collar white male vote, especially in the South, by reinforcing the deep suspicion of many conservative males that the Democratic Party is a hopeless captive of special interests, i.e. minorities, gays, and women, and that white men especially are still persona non grata in the party.

Hillary said it wrong but got it right about the hard working, white Americans that back her and not Obama. The supreme test for Obama is to prove that Hillary said it wrong and got it wrong. The West Virginia primary is yet another litmus test to see if he can.

--

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His new book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February 2008).

Comments

[randyjet]

The polls show that Clinton right now can beat McCain easily. Obama is at a draw. The main reason for this is that Obama has neglected the issues that matter most to ordinary Americans, NOT the elitist part of the Democrats. He agrees with Bush that oil should be taken OFF the market and put into the SPR, that there is NO oil speculation driving the price rise, and he is in favor of high oil prices. He leaves out 47 million people in his health care plan with just the poor being taken care of in that number. He LIES about his plan when he says we need universal health care and then says the OPPOSITE on his web site. His plan is an insurance company dream since they will get billions of tax dollars for the poor's health care while working people pick up the tab and get NOTHING if THEY have NO health insurance.
The FACT is that Obama is to the right of Clinton on most of the issues. He supports NAFTA while Clinton makes it clear that she will re-negotiate the agreements to plug the holes in it that have most hurt us. He suppports the Chamber of Commerce plan for amnesty for illegal immigrants and wants more to come and be used as a force to drive down wages of the least skilled. On virtually all major points Obama is against the interests of ordinary working class Americans.

[arthuride]

Well written, randyjet. I applaud your letter, and the facts cannot be argued with. Obama is the worse possible candidate for the White House. There is no way that I can see that he could ever win the presidency--and if he wins the nomination of the Democratic Party he will costs hundreds of Democrats their elections and the nation as a whole will turn red.

[SallyH499]

Regarding 1st comment comparing the Clinton and Obama healthcare plans, the truth is both candidates are offering plans that will fail. Other than the individual mandate of Clinton’s plan (which is growing failure in Massachusetts and penalizes the middle class) their plans are pretty much the same. Both Clinton and Obama’s plans retain the inefficient, fragmented, private health insurance industry and use public dollars to subsidize and expand their business. This will not control costs or address the problem because insurance is not healthcare. I would like to remind people that, unlike shoes or cars, healthcare is not a market commodity any more than fire or police protection; the profit incentive of the insurance companies can only work by providing LESS healthcare and answering to the shareholders before the needs of patients. We need public oversight instead of problems hidden behind closed doors and doctors making decisions instead of paper pushers for profit.

The REAL universal healthcare plan was Kucinich’s Single-Payer (HR676- Conyers/Kucinich). Est. to save 383 billion a year by cutting out the private insurance middlemen who add no value to healthcare, limit our choices of doctors and dictate how doctors treat us.

I prefer Obama’s plan to Clinton's because it doesn't punish those who can't afford insurance but won’t qualify for the subsidies. I also believe Obama would support HR676 if congress passed the bill. BUT, that is up to the public to make happen because it’s congress, not the president, who determines healthcare policy.

[Doofus]

'Hillary said it wrong but got it right about the hard working, white Americans that back her and not Obama. The supreme test for Obama is to prove that Hillary said it wrong and got it wrong. The West Virginia primary is yet another litmus test to see if he can.'

Obviously (?), it's a mistake to make West Virginia an exemplar of the US as a whole, unless the US is all impoverished under-educated rural white folks, 'not that there's anything wrong with that'.

Mostly these folks are going to vote for Hillary. The more interesting question will be, what will
they do in November. The 'election' next week in WV is about WV voters want, not what the US
as a whole wants. For that, you have to put it all together.

[benman]

The oldest, whitest, least-educated state in the Union is not indicative of America as a whole.

[mawrm]

Look, the uneducated white vote is hard for EVERY SINGLE Democratic candidate PERIOD! Sure Hillary Clinton is getting quite a few more of them than Obama, but add a Republican into the picture and the differences between Clinton and Obama are almost negligible. It's not an Obama problem, it's a Democratic party problem and since there is lightening and thunder raging outside as I type this, I must state that I NEVER agree with Mr. Hutchinson however this is the one exceptional case that I do. Rather than obsess about Hillary Clinton's comments - no they weren't a "random" observation but intentional, I would rather we focus on the _SOLUTIONS_. The Democratic party needs to get better at attracting uneducated white voters because there are LOTS of them and they have a tremendous effect on national contests. The question is how. Pandering and racial insinuations are NOT the answer. Dems need to spend more time and effort listening to this demographic, figure out their concerns and find creative ways to convey to them that they are taking their concerns into consideration and crafting policy to help address their needs. Bottom line - we need to turn these uneducated voters into at least _political­ly-educate­d_ voters.

[randyjet]

I have found that college educated voters are among the ignorant. They do no better than uneducated whites in looking at issues and choosing the candidate that reflects their interests. They are afflicted with the same group think as all other segments. The best example is the high prices for gasoline. The college educated voters think it is the shortage of oil driving price when in FACT it is speculation. They uncritically take the WORD of interested parties on the price rise and overlook the facts. They cannot even use common sense when Goldman Sachs says oil will go to $200/bbl, the price jumps $2/bbl, yet there is no problem with supply! Obama supporters are well off enough so that the high price does not hit them as hard as the working folks.
The perception is that Dems are elitist and have nothing to offer in the way of programs for working people. Edwards was the candidate who cut through that barrier and showed the way forward. Kerry was a real candidate who had a program to appeal to those voters, and he was swamped by the media and a lot of Dems who agreed that he was an elitist. FDR was a real elitist in every way, yet he won and got a program that included the blue class voters. This is entirely possible if we drop the stupid concerns of the fringe elements of the Democratic party. No more vegans, anti-gun, pacifist, gay marriage, nuts.

[altohone]

I suggest you read the posts here for a while before you make assumptions that are easily proven wrong. Start with a search for "oil" and you will see posts where speculation is acknowledged as a main culprit.
There's no denying that war in Iraq limited supply and raised the "risk premium" and drove the initial price spike though. We're also well aware of the effect of Bush's falling dollar on oil prices. Your uncritical ommission of those FACTS appears deliberate.

Your insulting ways suggests you are here to stoke division and help the GOP.

[pedromatos]

She commenting on an article , BUTTTTT!!! she agrees and believes what the article says. Is why she said after this is why. People are not that stupid to see what she was trying to say!

[Naieve]

Maybe we should now be asking if Hillary can be elected without the African American vote?
Because she has pretty much just lost all of it.

[THISTLE]

Thank You, Mr. Hutchinson for your truth, Hillary was commenting on an "AP" poll, she was not
making vile racist remarks, as the media has said. Every "pundit," and all the polls were saying
the exact same thing. The lies and pathological hatred for Senator Clinton is outrageous.
Her words are twisted, lies are said about her every minute, and no one is called out on this,
and I want to Thank You for speaking the truth and stating the facts. I am surprised we are not hearing that Hillary Clinton caused Katrina. The media are the ones playing the race card, not the Clintons.

[nsiah7]

So you agree Obama misspoke about the bittergate. Could you imagine how the media would spin if Obama had said something like "Clinton is not winning the hard working black male and females voters which the democrats need to win if they are to win the white house". The world will break loose on him. What a measuring standard.

[sparkandy]

Both comments were sort of out of line. Obama came across as patronizing and totally ignorant of the people he was talking about. Clinton came across as pandering. But I don't think we can attack either one of them for their comments without attacking the other one, too.

[Doofus]

Or Hillary was just pointing out the obvious, that more blacks vote
for Obama & more whites vote for her. The main truth is, however,
that a LOT of whites ARE voting for Obama, and undoubtedly, more
will in November. Evidently, more than would be voting for her. This
can work, people.

I, for one, am not going to disappoint Michelle Obama. Go read
Frank Rich... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11rich.html

[famu96]

Dems better understand that without the support of African Americans they have no party. We are their most loyal supporters. Now they can play around and assist Clinton in stealing this election if they want to. If so they will go the way of the whigs, green party, or libertarians. African Americans have been catching hell for 400 years so four more is no problem. This is bigger than Obama. This is about R-E-S-P-E-C-T.

[SamThornton]

Earl, you're too nice to say it and everyone else seems to be dancing around it, but what Sen. Clinton was referring to when she invoked, "white, hard-working American men" was what she and her class look upon as ignorant, racist rednecks who live in a van down by the river, and whose simple little minds can be easily manipulated by appealing to their fears, hates, and prejudices.

Sen. Clinton's and hubby Bill's racial politics are actually as insulting to "white, hard-working American men" as they are to African-Americans, and for the same reason: the witless prejudice against all ordinary (non-wealthy) Americans that stands behind such awful remarks.

Sen. Clinton should be ashamed, and would be, if she were a better person. But she's not. I'm glad I found it out now.

[falcao]

"She obviously didn't mean that." I would argue that she meant precisely that and that the phrase was meant to convey exactly what many of us heard. This is hardly the first time Senator Clinton has put such "awkwardly phrased" notions out there ... Just how many times is a reasonable person expected to give her the benefit of the doubt? I'm all out of chits. The so-called pattern that she speaks of is a pattern that she had taken every opportunity to inflame and reinforce. Color me jaded but I stopped buying what she's looking to peddle a long time ago.

Here's an idea: Let's allow Obama to go out there as our unfettered nominee and see how he does. My sense is that once he's freed of the Hillary factor, he'll do just fine. I'm happy to see him largely ignoring Clinton now and training his sights on McCain.

[zull2]

The real problem is that being "hard working" has nothing to do with race. The fact that I have less melanin contributes absolutely nothing to my actual work ethic.

The problem around that is that Hillary Clinton has decided that it's more important to target voters along racial lines and play groups against each other rather than bring voters together. And the irony of it all is that the voters that Hillary Clinton is targeting will most likely vote for John McCain rather than her in November, even if by some fluke of party corruption she ended up with the nomination. And if John McCain wins in the fall, people die. He wants to continue war, and war results in death. He wants to go to war in Iran. That will equal thousands upon thousands more deaths. You vote for that, you know you're endorsing murder. The USA was never, by the will of the founding fathers, ever supposed to be going around starting wars because politicians didn't like someone, or because they wanted to get their poll numbers up. That is freaking insanity. It is the recipe that killed every great civilization in this world, and for us to continue down that path is entirely mindless.

[trubski]

"And the irony of it all is that the voters that Hillary Clinton is targeting will most likely vote for John McCain rather than her in November, even if by some fluke of party corruption she ended up with the nomination."

Amen.

This whole 'electability' argument is built on sand. If anyone thinks Hillary would get the gun owning votes of Central and Western Pennsylvania in the General Election please contact me immediately - I have some land you will be interested in. And in the GE neither she nor Obama will get those votes in WVA or KY, either.

[mindact]

Uh, obama doesn't have to prove Hillary wrong using West Virginia. He's already won the nomination so there's nothing to prove. The only reason Hillary is still running is because they're giving her some respect and space to withdraw gracefully. If y'all get out of hand, we will shut this thing down with the superdelegates. We had 9 of them declare on Friday. We can declare with 20 on Monday...

[RichLiberal]

Hillary is laying down the map of her support:

http://www.diversityj.com/ElectoralVoteStates.html

Without the Kennedy-Dean gerry-mandering of the delegate process, Hillary would have won the nomination long ago.

The current effort is to define and establish the depth and breadth of her support as a base for operations moving ahead.

Given the full court press by the MSM intent on painting the Clintons as racists and bad for America for nearly 6 straight months now, I'd say that with each election that Hillary wins her support gets stronger and deeper and more immune to the MSM BS that plays 7x24.

[nsiah7]

Was it not the same process that was used to elect her husband? Did she not agree to the rules at the beginning of the contest? Did she contest any of the rules at the beginning? How was the "bittergate" played out on MSM? Go and check.

[altohone]

Always blaming others in a hope to sow division.

Gee, it seems so familiar.

Your knowledge on Democratic rules and how they were made suggests you've been hanging out with Mark Penn.

"Operations moving ahead"?
Referring to 2012 or helping McCain?

BTW, you may want look up the definition of gerrymander.

[rantsandraves]

I love the jedi mind trick that people are trying to spin. Obama can't win the vote of hard working white poeple but Hillary can. Last time I checked Hillary can't beat Obama, so if this base is so important why isn't she ahead in any category. Secondly, why is Obama winning over educated, white collar, white americans... isn't that the same demographic that hillary belongs?

Bill Clinton won two general elections and lost the "hard working white male vote" to the GOP. Here is the truth about votes. They only matter when they are cast ( and hopefully/­correctly) counted. Polls are worthless exercises that depend on the self fulfilling prophecy effect to give them any validity. Can anyone point to any poll in December or January that gave Obama a snowballs chance.

Democrats need to get their sorry ass act together, this is not american idol.

[CheeseNow]

She can win the un- and under-educated hardworking white folks because they lack the ability to read the wealth of information that is out there in cyberspace about her. They probably are so tired from working in coal mines that they don't even pick up a newspaper and read how the rest of the world regards her. Name familiarity gets votes, and that's too bad in this case.

[Doofus]

It's hardly ever the case that 'running a Demo candidate for President'
is not a complete crap-shoot. You really just don't know how it's going
to turn out. This year is no exception. It is true, however, that taking away
the obvious, self-proclaimed candidate of the 'under-class' is going to
change things for November, just not make things any more predictable.

[TIMLHOWE]

youre a vile ignorant fool.

[brooklyncitizen]

Obama won Iowa and so many other white states...I simply don't see how anyone can make this claim (Hillary) or support it (you, Rangel). It is baseless.

THis is also a slur against whites : you have to be uneducated to elect Hillary as your candidate (translation gullible and easily manipulated).

THis is Bush's base and they are a sad lot: people that repeatedly vote against their best interests
and are too dumb to ever register this. It is sad.

[arthuride]

I am from Iowa. Obama won the caucuses as they were packed with out-of-state and in-state college students who generally do not vote. The older Iowans did not vote for Obama, and they will definitely vote against him in November.

[Freedomscap]

Grabbing hold of this myth is too simplistic. Obama did get hard working white folks, just not in Ohio and PA -- the rural belt.

Why do you insist in adopting the rhetoric of Hillary, even if it is not true?

And the next issue is: does he need them -- given the fact that he is changing the old way of looking at the landscape of the American politics. Example: the Vote for Change drive today.

Please get unstuck, Earl.

[cylindar]

T^he bald facts are that Hillary is vying for racist votes. This is one thing Obama cannot do. So If the white racist pigs don't vote for him, the hell with them. They are all losing their jobs anyways and no one will give them the time of day sooner or later. If the white racist pigs vote for Hillary they will deserve everything they get from that choice and it is not going to be pretty as she is really a staunch supporter of NAFTA which is losing jobs aplenty for the white racist pigs. Now if they vote for Obama he will take care of them because he is not a black racist pig and he really believes in the best welfare for everyone, white, and every other color of the spectrum.