Not The Time To Celebrate Clinton As Brawler

There are few writers I respect more, and have learned more from, than Susan Faludi. But she dangerously dismisses racism as a factor in drawing white male voters to Hillary Clinton's campaign in her New York Times op-ed essay this week Instead she endorses Clinton's archetype as a "brawler" who gets "down with the boys". as a model for women candidates in the future.

Sorting out sharply-different perceptions is essential to winning in November, and my comments are intended in that spirit.

Clinton has repeatedly criticized Obama for a "pattern" of failing to win the votes of "hard-working Americans." Her campaign consultants fanned the flames of the Rev. Wright controversy with reporters behind the scenes. In Indiana, she accepted the support of the Rush Limbaugh crossover wreckers, and won 65-70 percent of voters who described themselves as "conservative" or "very conservative." In Pennsylvania, she won the support of the voters Gov. Ed Rendell once described as uncomfortable voting for a black presidential candidate. Many if not most of these Clinton voters plan to vote for John McCain in the fall.

Yet Faludi writes dismissively that "pundits" [read: vapid commentators] "attribute the erosion in Barack Obama's white male support to a newfound racism." What, I wonder, does this most elegant of writers mean by "racism"? Whether it is "new" or "new-found" is irrelevant. Ten percent of white voters openly say they would vote against Obama on the basis of race. That's the "old" racism. Many other white voters correctly resent the label "racist", because they have rejected notions of racial superiority. But their discomfort with Obama cannot be completely separated from subterranean racial dynamics. They are naturally quicker to merge Barack Obama with Pastor Wright than John McCain with the anti-Catholic Minister Hagee. Part of the squeezed middle-class, they resent any notions of affirmative action based on race. They hate feeling blamed for the sins of their forefathers. The notion of structural or institutional racism leaves them indifferent. Among some, the term "elitist" has become a populist codeword that updates the old definition of "uppity."

Faludi ignores these realities as thoughtless inventions of pundits. But her current argument comes close to courting - and rechanelling - the very backlash voters she has written eloquently about in the past. Away from the white woman and towards the black man.

In Faludi's apparent new archetype of the successful woman, if this takes a little pandering and brawling, the message is: bring it on. Clinton "has been converting white males, assuring them that she's come into their tavern not to smash the bottles but to join the brawl." Throw back shots at the bar. Finger those guns. Threaten to obliterate Iran. Throw our nuclear protection around those havens of masculinity, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Hillary is a path breaker for future generations of women because she has broken the glass ceiling with her newfound politics of "pugilism".

The evidence is that white male working class voters deserted Al Gore and John Kerry by margins of 20-25 percent, long before Barack Obama entered politics. The reasons for this mass desertion are more complicated than race. Clinton should know, because she and her husband embraced the Wall Street policies of NAFTA, WTO trade rules, and the sweeping deregulations and privatizations that kept middle class people working longer hours for less pay, and drove whites, blacks, Latinos and Asians, men and women, into ferocious competition over college admissions and secure jobs. There always was a viable option known as anti-corporate economic populism for the Democrats, but that progressive Democratic tradition was "off the table" during the Clinton presidency. Clinton's new populism on the campaign trail suffered from its appeals to "hard-working whites" and the belligerent threat to nuke and obliterate the enemy in Tehran.

Since when did winning acceptance among traditional white males become such a high priority for a foremost exponent of feminism? Wasn't it to be the other way around, that all men would gradually shed their patriarchal macho codes and join a common struggle for equality and fairness?

Is this the tone the Clinton campaign - and its most ardent supporters - want to leave behind? It's one thing to recognize that the idealism of social movements has to be complemented by a tough realism in contests for political power. But it's another to celebrate brawling, and condemn the press for "primly thumbing the pages of Queensberry" and "scolding" Clinton for - here Faludi uses quotations - being "ruthless" and "dirty." Faludi seems to come full circle, accusing the press of becoming too traditionally female. Anyone watching FOX or CNN, will wonder where exactly Faludi finds these cowering wimps. How about George Stephanopoulos serving as a messenger boy for FOX and Hillary in their accusations about Obama's alleged ties to the Weather Underground?

Let's be absolutely clear. Obama can win the presidency if he loses the white working class by the same wide margin as Al Gore if he adds 4-5 million new young Obama voters, keeps 90 percent of the African-American vote, and wins a majority of Latinos. He should win moderates and pro-choice voters by exposing McCain's zero support for Planned Parenthood positions. He can expect to do very well among voters with his alternatives to Iraq, economic recession, and right-wing court appointments wrapped into his theme of change.

Obama's support among white males has declined under the hammering of the Clintons, but he still has won white male majorities in ten of 23 states since January. He took 52 percent of the white male vote in Virginia before the negative attacks began, and still held 42 percent of those white males in North Carolina and Indiana [where Republicans could enter the Democratic primary. There still is plenty of opportunity to increase those white male numbers with a message about Iraq and the recession.

An interesting question is whether Hillary Clinton and her most ardent supporters can shift from brawling against Barack to embracing him wholeheartedly as the nominee. To celebrate Clinton's brawling at just the moment she appears to have lost means it will take weeks, or longer, to repair the internal damage, learn from the experience, and move forward. The numbers suggest that the Clinton forces can be decisive in Obama's winning or losing in November. And that would perpetuate a schism for a long time to come.

Comments

[dreamseeker9837]

Msohio - let me just concur - when you called Tubbs a hyena, I almost choked on my coffee!@!! I've been trying in vain for months to put my finger on the Perfect word to describe this woman!!!!!! She is a total l.b. (LunchBox). lol. She will from here on out, be addressed as such. Thank you.

[dreamseeker9837]

What really gets me is Hillary and Walmart. Have any of you ever Youtubed "Hillary and Walmart"? Let me tell you: she was standing up there preaching about how these "uneducated, hard-working Americans, white Americans" should NOT have healthcare and other benefits while working for this conglomerate. It's painful to watched how she, stood up to the dais, and served on that board and time after time and denied these "hard-working americans, white americans" what they deserved. And they flock to her like some kind of messiah. She was passionate about denying these people these benefits. It was crazy. These rural folks are truly uninformed. It was a disgustin and disgraceful era and I'm sure she'd love not to have it brought up...but if you Youtube her, you will once again see her doing what comes natural - LOOKING out for number 1 - Miss Hillary. Disgusting.

[Goldie9]

Very similar to the Pennsylvania results, the exit polls showed that over 80% of the W. Virginia voters stated that race was "an issue" to them... apparently, there are still many Americans with a 20th century mindset, which means we will need to bring in the new millions of 21st century voters for whom race is not "an issue." Electing Obama to the White House in November is the first step in facing the new century of ideas!

[tkondaks]

CarrieAntigua finds that Hillary speaking with a southern accent "contrived" and in "stark contrast to Obama."
CarrieAntigua, do you not find Obama speaking with an African-American accent contrived? He grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia in a white family. For Obama to speak "Black" -- which we have all seen him do -- is as contrived as Hillary to speak with a southern accent.

[CarrieAntigua]

I Loved the article...­I also love how Obama has energized the election process like never before...H­Ilary, too. What HIlary shows me though, is in stark contrast to Obama...he­r campaign seems so contrived, from riding around in the pickup, throwing back shots, speaking like a "brawler".­..speaking with a southern accent...w­hat is lacking so much for HIlary is simply her lack of sincerity.­..what is evident about Obama is his sincerity is right out front.

[katefranklin]

Let's talk about brawlers. If you are honestly looking for a president that can kick your ass. A real fighter. If it matters to you that our president be able to take a punch. Rather, if you require someone that can endure a bone-fracturing beating at the end of a rifle butt, then there is a candidate for you. Hillary Clinton, the corporate lawyer gone First Lady, is not for you. Your candidate is John McCain.

[paganmist]

And I might vote for him, too, if he weren't so all-fired determined to strip away my rights.

[leftbehind2000]

...and seat SCOTUS jurists who are in the pocket of big business.

[08timefortruth]

I might vote for him if he wasn't a sexist, if he weren't a warmonger, and if he didn't intend to give us four more years of Bush. In other words if he weren't a republican.

[MizLiz]

We've had plenty of presidents who were "brawlers" and look where it got us. For the love of God, isn't it time to elect someone who can bring people together, get them talking, and come to a reasonable decision they all can live with? I'm sick of tough-guy bullshit. We've had that for the last 7 years.

[RobertAndropolis]

Mr. Hayden has touched on the raw nerve core issue currently at hand: whether Senator Clinton and her supporters will be able to wholeheartedly embrace Senator Obama. This will be a tough one for Senator Clinton to reconcile within herself. At the close of one of their 22 debates--which must be some kind of record--she said she was "honored, honored, honored" to share the stage with Senator Obama. Honored in triplicate. Did anyone really buy that she was so honored? After having contemptuously said that all he had to offer was a speech in 2002? And pairing with their Republican opponent in readiness to lead, excluding him?

Are people really going to forget her attacks? Her tone? During that final catastrophic "debate" moderated by the two imps at ABC, after dancing around the question, she had to be asked a second time if she would indeed back Senator Obama were he the nominee. Like pulling teeth without novocaine, finally she said: "Yes--yes--yes," and the world watched as she fought back her puke reflex upon accepting that possibility.

She will put her backing "wholeheartedly" behind Obama, but only in word. There will be no investment of the heart. And it will be undeniable everyone watching, because she is neither that good an actress nor, ironically, that good a liar. We will all then clearly see the bitterness of which Obama spoke, residing in the entitled posture of the junior senator from New York.

[Gerahufff]

But, why should she embrace Obama's candidacy wholeheartedly? The problem with Hayden's piece, and many others like it is that they don't mention Obama's attacks on Hillary -- that were clearly very effective. Obama decided to challenge the first viable female candidate in history, now he must live with the consequences, which sadly, may mean not winning the general election. Hillary cannot be blamed for that. Hillary had to be a brawler for the future female candidate. Had she pulled out early on on principle (acknowledging that Barack was the better candidate) it would have been too nuanced an action for the country to get it. She would have been deemed a wimpy girl who just didn't have what it takes to stand up to the big boys. Do you remember that second debate where she was accused of being the victim? Hillary needed to be a brawler so that the next viable female candidate won't have to be.

[08timefortruth]

"Obama decided to challenge the first viable female" oh give me a break, so because she is female he should not have challenged her????? As a female I find that offensive as hell, if she couldn't beat him fair and square she should lose......­if you want to be "equal" you shouldn't expect to be treated special because of gender. He is the first viable Black candidate so by your view maybe she should not have challenged him.

[definitelyNOTmisterRIGHT]

Gerahufff. can you give us some examples or explain what barack did to hillary that was "attacking"? i truly believe that he is running the cleanest campaign i have ever seen.

[tototo]

"Had she pulled out early on on principle (acknowledging that Barack was the better candidate) it would have been too nuanced an action for the country to get it."

Since when can't Americans do math?

"Obama decided to challenge the first viable female candidate in history, now he must live with the consequences, which sadly, may mean not winning the general election."

As I recall there were more than two candidates in the race at the start, so Obama's "challenge" wasn't directed at Hillary in particular. What did you want him to do, drop out while he was ahead? What would that have said for the "next viable African-American candidate" -- to paraphrase you?

[Msohio]

I don't understand how the Clinton campaign can be proud of the way they campaigned against Obama. For the people in West Virginia to overwhelmingly state in exit polls that the gas holiday is a good idea, shows you how misinformed they are. They did not pay attention to experts but rather decided to fall for the racism and division that Hillary decided was her way to steal this nomination. For the hyena Stephanie Tubbs-Jones to appear on television and support Hillary's racist comments is unbelievable in 2008. If Hillary continues to campaign to get donations from "hard working people" just to repay herself millions is totally unforgivable.

One thing that believers and spiritually led people know is that when you have to manipulate, steal, change rules as you go---the thing that you wanted was not meant to be. You will ultimately create situations where chaos reigns. Take George W. Bush's Forida and Ohio thefts as prime examples.

Good-bye Hillary and don't continue to make fools of the hard-working people.

[burnt]

"Not The Time To Celebrate Clinton As Brawler"

Yes... especially when it is as scripted a "pro" wrestling.

"An interesting question is whether Hillary Clinton and her most ardent supporters can shift from brawling against Barack to embracing him wholeheartedly as the nominee."

I just have no faith that individuals as self-serving as the Clintons will provide any substantial support for Obama. No doubt they might go through the motions... as in the Gore and Kerry campaigns, but again, that was just poor acting and never really had any conviction behind it. They just don't serve the Party beyond their own needs. They never have. Hopefully, her some of her supporters have a wider vision and an understanding of the greater good of the Party, country and world.

The Democratic Party leadership and superdelegates need to stand up now and end this decisively.

I know some of your post has been touched upon by others Tom, but this is a good compilation and the analysis is spot on in most respects. thanks

[jackstpaul]

Bauersox, your comment that:

"An interesting question is whether Hillary Clinton and her most ardent supporters can shift from brawling against Barack to embracing him wholeheartedly as the nominee."
Maybe Hillary can. This supporter cannot and will not.

And similar puzzles me. What exactly has Obama and his close advisors done re: Hillary to bring about this anger? What? What I have heard is a bunch of things about what pundits, media types (idiotic Chris Matthews), have said or done regarded as unfair, insulting, sexist. I can recite a litany of things that Hillary and close supporters have said and done--including later race-related stuff (I didn't consider some of the earlier stuff to be race-motivated, rather than benign references to race) that is low-class, negative. But that wouldn't affect my voting for her or not. What I've never heard is a litany of things about Obama.

If your dissatisfaction relates to what others have done or said other than Obama, I can't understand it given how vitally important the presidency is; it’s not the Podunk city council.

What gives?

[butchie65]

I'm a 67 year old woman and have seen many candidates in my lifetime. Obama has something that Hillary will never have, 'honesty." Have you actually checked Hillary's backgound, honest and truely ? I think not, because if you did you would see what we do. This woman is a fraud from the get go. She is up for fraud right now, have you checked that ? Probably NOT ! I voted all my life for a Democrat and twice for Bill. What I see in him now, does nothing but ,disgusts me. You Hillary supporters listen to the BS on TV, check the internet and get educated. Hillary lost me when she screamed, "shame on you Barack Obama !" This is like a mother screaming at her child . Honesty is something Hillary doesn't know a thing about. Why do you think her own Supers are leaving her and going to Obama ?

[beetlejuiceonline]

Clinton was saying Obama had a "pattern" of failing to win the votes of white working class Americans.
Obama has a "pattern" of winning the votes of black working class and middle class Americans.

People who are saying they will not vote for Obama, do so because they are unhappy with his lack of experience, his membership in a racist religion, his record of lying about issues and his associations with criminals, political corruption, domestic terrorism and foreign terrorist groups.

The one thing that doesn't make a difference to people is his race. If Hillary Clinton was black, asian or hispanic, people would still be voting for her.

[jpzora]

beetlejuiceonline, please feel free to fill in the below spaces with responses:

Membership in "racist religion" (examples of racism)
1.
2.
3.
4.

record of lying about issues
1.
2.
3.

associations with criminals
1.
2.
3.

political corruption
1.
2.
3.

domestic terrorism (!)
1.
2.
3.

foreign terrorist groups (are you seriously tarring him with a YouTubed video of an "endorsement" from Hamas? Seriously?)

And do you really think an Asian woman, even given the charisma and soaring rhetoric of an extremely capable politician such as, I don't know, BARACK OBAMA) would still be in this campaign. Somebody sounds bitter. I don't mean to be sarcastic and I really don't want to turn you off from please supplying some answers for the spaces above. I like to consider myself an informed voter. If you can demonstrate for me that Barack's criminal associations are anything comparable to that of the Clintons' or show that the UCC in Chicago preaches Hate on the order of any of Hillary's colleagues in the Fellowship, maybe I'll be swayed to voting for Ron Paul or somebody.

[anon004]

If Hillary Clinton weren't the wife of an ex-president, she wouldn't be running (most likely because she wouldn't even be in the Senate). So, no one would be voting for her?

[belikejeanvaljean]

Good points. We have had eight years of a president who likes to fight and look what it has gotten us. We really don't need another fighter right now.

[ScroogeandMarleyLLC]

Let's also be clear, Tom, that if Obama *did* win the presidency without the assent of the "hard working white guys & gals", then we will ALL be sitting on a powder keg with matches in our hands in this country. Do you really think that with all the thousands and thousands of angry "hard working white guys" coming back without good jobs awaiting them, feeling betrayed by a bunch of elitists who undermined them, and with a fresh knowledge about urban warfare and making things like IEDs in mind that it's a good idea to cavalierly dismiss middle class working stiffs?

Don't you remember the militia movement and Oklahoma City during the Clinton years??

[Gatling]

George Bush had the support of less than half the country. No bombs.

What would make Obama different, if he garners enough support to win the election?

[blaqntelligence]

Hillary Clinton is constantly propped up, rather badly, as the poster child for women's rights.
In reality, she has made it difficult for the next, hopefully more qualified, woman to run for president.

[hopeless277]

If Hillary campaigns with anything less than full fledged support for Obama, she will(hopefully) be run out of the Democratic party and go join Lieberman with the Republicans. That's where she is most comfortable, in the company of liars, cheat, and theives.

[Kishadawn]

Mark my words, she's running Independent.

[kgb999]

With what money?