Why Hillary's Men Troubles Explain Her Race to the Bottom

There's only one thing that makes sense of the Clinton campaign's clumsy and classless injection of race into her primary battle with Barack Obama. And that is that her victory in New Hampshire -- impressive though it was -- threatened to transform her into a special-interest candidate.

Hillary would not have won that battle without exaggerated support from women. Despite having campaigned vigorously as a candidate who just-so-happened to be a woman, her lifeline came from affinity voters.

How then to compete against Obama, who has -- as Al Sharpton recently complained -- run a race-neutral campaign? A man standing as a general-interest candidate despite his historic racial qualifications.

The answer, it seems, has been to inject race into the campaign by any means necessary. The effort has run the gamut from old-school racism -- Andrew Cuomo's execrable "shuck-and-jive" comment -- to tired racial paradigms -- a Clinton pollster's assertion that Hispanics don't vote for black people -- to anti-racism-as-racism -- the bizarre suggestion by a Clinton surrogate that Obama had been adopted by white America as its "imaginary hip black friend."

As distasteful as this campaign has been, it has worked. The media have segued neatly from Clinton's tears and her outpouring of support among women in the granite state to Obama's standing as a "black candidate" -- now awkwardly forced to defend the legacy of Dr. King from slights by the Clinton machine.

So much for the post-racial transcendence to which he has aspired; Obama has now even been yoked -- however tenuously -- to the discredited politics of Louis Farrakahn, thanks to Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen's smear job this morning.

[A note to anyone covering that piece: Since when is it reasonable to hold a political candidate responsible for everything that's ever been published in his church's fucking newsletter?!? What horseshit.]

And so, while Obama is being forced to clarify that he is not, indeed, a Nation-of-Islam sympathizing closet anti-Semite, no one is looking much at Clinton's very real troubles winning over the hearts and minds of male voters.

From Rollingstone.com/politics

Comments

[fjschmi]

How can winning an "exaggerated" majority of the majority gender of a polity be considered anything other than a sure way to win an election?

Only by employing some variation of "fuzzy math" can a minority (male) voter be annointed as the norm voter, but the majority (female) voter represents an affinity voter.

[Cathexis]

I was about to light into you, Tim, on what I expected to be a mindless, venting diatribe with sexist undertones.

I may still not agree with everything you said, but realize my ire was raised by the headline, which you may not have written.

To whomever wrote that headline: Your headline has nothing to do with the content of Tim's article and merely conveys your own personal biases/attitudes towards Ms Clinton. Please keep your objections to actual substance, in the future ... or, at a minimum, keep your headlines on topic.

[Micaanab]

I would rather not see Clinton as the Democratic nominee. I do not believe she is right for the job. I feel she is extremely misleading with her "35 years experience". I feel the biggest problem of the US is not the war, not the economy, not race, or sexism. The real problem is we have a congress that will not allow a counter party do their jobs. All these issues we have could be fixed if ALL of congress was working for the better of the country rather than their own special interest. Clinton is already mixed up in those interest. She has already made enemies of the republican party. I feel Obama has a better chance of bringing the parties together for the good of the country. By voting for Obama we are sending a message to congress to straighten up. This is the format which Obama is running. Clinton is running on the format of being Anti Bush who is a republican. Do you actually feel she is going to be buddy buddy to the republicans once she is in office?

[Tellmethetruth]

I think the problem is not with Clinton, but with serious prejudice on the part of some males and it's called sexism.

Scapegoating and blaming the female because the male is unable to show respect is what immature people do who don't know how else to act.

Some self-examination of conscience needs to happen here, especially with many of the white males who write articles about Clinton. So many of the articles are full of fear as if Clinton is some frightening and powerful demonic force, all evil can be attributed to, she does so many dire and sinister deeds - at least in the minds of the white male journalists. Hum... I think it is just fear of a woman. Imagine....

[ShirleyKnot]

Since Obama has to prove he's not a closet anti-Semite, Clinton ought to bend over backward to prove she's not a witch. Oh, and witches bend over backward - she must be one!

I'm for Edwards because he seems to care more about poverty and corporate greed than either of these two candidates, but I hate watching people like you poison the field for women and African Americans.

[Meah]

I think her name is Senator Clinton. It is so obvious that those who disrespect her call her Hillary. Of course men are not happy about her candidacy. It has nothing to do with Senator Obama. It has nothing to do with race. It has to do with FEAR, misogyny, the fragile male ego, stupidity, and, control. Too bad guys, the more you push, the more ground you will lose. Real men can handle a woman in the White House. Women have had it with the disrespect. You'll soon see.

[ariadne1]

in michigan, hillary was the one viable candidate on the dem ballot and she only received 55% of the dem vote... 40% of the dem voters were not committed; out of the 40% 73% were for obama and he never stepped foot in the state.

this from msnbc

[EspressoAtNoon]

Excellent Post! You are 100% correct. Hillary and Klan are disgraceful. They make me sick.

[hooya]

Hillary and Barak both have man problems. WHITE MAN PROBLEMS! As in they aren't going to win any of the states George Bush won. Go to the Yahoo 2008 Election Meter. Check out how much of the voter population is caucasion. Then, you tell me which of those states won't pick a white Republican over them. Florida has an edge in Democratic voters but has voted Republican in the last two elections. It is sad to know America is still stuck there, but you can always face reality and elect John Edwards president. His ideas are more progressive than those of Hill and Barry. None of this is Edwards' fault. This is the America we live in. We need to win in November.

[adamNsteve]

Garbage.

The Obama camp injected race into the campaign to peel away black voters in South Carolina.

Knowingly.

Intentionally.

Injected race.

[newyorknewyork]

great post. thanks.

[LeonBNJ]

The problem for Sen. Clinton as to her MLK-LBJ comment is that it makes it sound like only a White person can make change on important issues. That will be seen by many as a racist bash against Sen. Obama and Americans of color. Many despise Sen. Clinton to be the canidate. Sen. Clinton is in a despirate fight for the nomination vs. Sen. Obama and she and her supporters made a statement they could have worded better or perhaps not said at all. It may also be to appeal to White males, most of whom don't want either a woman or black man to be the Demo's canidate or to be president due to their narrow minds. This is made worse by some of the left of center views on critical issues that also turn off many men to vote for her specifically.
This has become a very distracting and disturbing addition to hate campagining we now see as normal.

[neworleanslady68]

Fascinating how a man phrases this...Hillary has a male voter problem? If, indeed, far fewer men are willing to vote for her than are women, perhaps this indicates many MEN have a problem with female leadership.

Women have lifetimes of experience voting for people with genitalia different from our own. Really, more men should try it sometime.

(female Obama voter)

[MetricSystem]

"The Clintons have been a divisive force in this country just like the Bush's."

Apparently so were Al Gore and John Kerry since the Republican attack machine was revved up for their candidacies as well. Some Obamaniacs seem to think the problems between Democrats and Republicans all come down to the Clintons. The only reason they're divisive is because a certain portion of the country (Republicans) dislike them. Again I remind you that Gore and Kerry would have to be labeled divisive as well since there was a good portion of the public who refused to get behind them as well in 2000 and 2004.

[Dailyfare]

I love you! I was furious at Richard Cohen's tasteless column this morning. Thank you for this very well-written rebuttal.