As Hillary starts negotiating the terms of her surrender it would be so surprising and so uplifting if she would take the high road. Surely her last-ditch message to superdelegates cannot be an argument that America is too racist to elect a black president. That just cannot be the legacy of her historic campaign.
As I've written here before I gave Mrs. Clinton the benefit of the doubt for months while others saw Machiavellian manipulation, but these last death throes of her presidential bid are becoming dangerously depressing.
I keep going back to John Edwards's seemingly off-the-cuff response in the South Carolina debate. When asked if he thought some would vote for him precisely because he was neither a woman nor black he shot back, "If that's the only reason they're voting for me I don't want their vote."
With at least twenty percent of white Clinton supporters in both Kentucky and West Virginia admitting that race was a factor in their decision-making how hard would it have been for Hillary to say she didn't want to win that way; that the America she intended to lead was better than that. When John Edwards saw that ugliness he jumped back in and endorsed Obama and Jim Webb, Appalachian himself (and Obama's future VP), just chimed in urging tolerance and mutual understanding.
Instead of ducking, winking and nodding if Hillary had addressed the issue head on, wouldn't that have been the Presidential thing to do?
And as Machiavelli could have told her from his grave, she'd still have gotten the racist vote, she just wouldn't look as if she were courting it.
Trey Ellis is the author of Bedtime Stories: Adventures in the Land of Single-Fatherhood.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
oops, error...I meant to say that Black folks do NOT tend to discredit the intelligence or capability of white people based on their whiteness...sorry
"Surely her last-ditch message to superdelegates cannot be an argument that America is too racist to elect a black president. That just cannot be the legacy of her historic campaign." - I am afraid it is; in fact it's the only argument she has left it has been an underltyig theme of her entire campaign. In contrast, Obama has never said - and does not believe that a woman cannot get elected. But that is why Clinton is the old politics, Obama the new. And why Clinton is losing.
"Surely her last-ditch message to superdelegates cannot be an argument that America is too racist to elect a black president."
That is ridiculous intepretation of what's goin on. Maybe the working class voters she has attracted simply think that Clinton understands their needs better than Obama and that she is more of a fighter for them?
Maybe the pollsters who ask "is race and issue in this election?" should ask the direct questions, "are you not voting for Obama because he is black? Many people would answer "is race and issue in this election?" as yes, when they are not racist as I think everyone (and certainly the pundits on TV and in columns) agrees that race is indeed a factor, sometimes good and and sometimes bad. Maybe the people who answer yes are saying that many AAs support Obama because he is black. Whatever it is, I am so sick and tired of pollsters asking indirect quesitons and people making assumptions/interpretations about the answers that may not be there. Ask the darn question straight out , "will you not vote for Obama because he is black" or stop your assumptions otherwise and stop yet more blame on Hillary for people's shortcomings.
Hillary is not countingon racists, get over it.!
Just as you are assuming that the voters who say "Yes, race IS a factor in my voting tendencies" can't possibly always mean the obvious --which is, in other words, "I'm uneqivocally not voting for a black person"; you shouldn't also assume that the question was never clarified, elaborated on, or asked in such a way that left no doubt of the question's true intent.
I don't think the author's interpretation is "ridiculous" at all. I've seen voters say that they would not vote for Obama because he's black, and his blackness (even though he's half white) SCARED them. I've also read in one newspaper, The Telegraph, these exact words from a recently polled American:
"Obama has good ideas but the only thing I am afraid of is that if he becomes president we will see the scenes of the 60s again. They might think it"s their chance to rise."
So sir or madame, please don't attempt to chalk the "white, working-class vote" Hillary is so lop-sidedly receiving up to poor polling methods entirely. Instead, intellectually come to grips with the impact that race and racism are having on this campaign. Obama has done just that on gender issues, and outlines at least 25 different plans to increase gender equity in every sector from poverty, abortion rights, childcare, healthcare, equal pay, etc. It's all on his site, http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/womenissues
Has Hillary done this?? I ask, WHERE IS HILLARY'S RACE SPEECH???
Oh, it is so nice to read a real point of view... no flaming, no hysterical hyperbole, no snotty challenges. I was a neither a devout Hillary nor Obama supporter... I liked them both, but I stopped liking Obama for the same reason I stopped attending Raiders games... the fans tend to be thugs. If he can't bring the party together, I think it will be because his supporters have alienated so many.
In the same way Edwards said he doesn't want votes from people voting on race , Obama doesn't feel up to making the same kind of commitment towards party unity. .
Yes, everybody who votes for Hillary is obviously a racist. It has nothing to do with her strengths as a candidate or Obama's weaknesses and lack of experience. It's all about race.
Is this what we can expect from an Obama presidency every time he is criticized or his approval ratings drop? Charges of racism at every turn? Pleeeze. Ask yourself. Why does the issue of race never come up with Colin Powell or Condoleeza Rice? Just curious.
Because you say so? That don't make it true. Got any proof?
Well as you know Trey it's Indy 500 weekend. Hillary's RACE speech is awaiting her targeted NASCAR demographic.
The INdy 500 is not a NASCAR race.
where is Obama's speech about sexism?
What sexism? The sexism that allowed Hillary to stay in the race for months after it was over for fear of "offending" her or her irrational supporters? The sexism that allows her to say things that a white male candidate would have been castrated for? ("hardworking, white Americans..."). Cite me one example of sexism in this campaign where Hillary has actually suffered a negative effect.
Has Obama said or even implied that she can't win because she's a woman? If I missed that comment, then I agree he needs to make a gender speech. But I don't recall hearing anything about his saying that, cece. Please be good enough to send a link so I can read the comment and support you.
Thank you. Hillary does not need to address each of Obama's supporters fear and need. She does not need to say nice things about her Obama. I am so tired of this double standard as every single other man who has run for president has pointed out his opponents weaknesses without being villified. AND Hillary is NOT pointing out Obama's alleged weakness as a black man. The main reason she got the working class voters because she talks and listens to them better and will fight for them.
Also until the pollsters ask "did you not vote for Obaam becasue he is black" then I won't hear any of your suppositions that that is what people who answered yes to the ridiculous and open-ended question of "does race have an impact in this election". That's a question that can be interpreted in many ways including those that feel AA are voting for Obama because he is black or that yes, indeed race has impacted his appeal and hurt him at times. Ask the direct question or shut up about the meaning of the answers.
Abbie, do you think Billary would fight harder FOR working class voters than she has AGAINST everything Bu$h has asked for?
The only thing Billary seems able to fight is the Democratic Party and her Democratic opponent.
Please now. Where's Hillary's apology for suggesting Obama might go the way of RFK? Cos I've heard TWO "apologies" out of her mouth thus far and none have addressed this directly.
because she did not say that .You just did.
Once again, WHERE IS HILLARY'S SPEECH ABOUT RACE?
And Obama didn't do a damn thing to Hillary around her gender.
Actually, no, he didn't. Reference me ONE thing that closely resembles sexism to come from Senator Obama's mouth. ONE!
When did Obama ever insult Hillary or insinuate harm to her that he should feel obligated to make a speech in support of her gender? I'll answer the question for you. Never. You Clinton supporters need to get your facts straight. Then again, Clinton needs to do the same herself.
He'll probably make one if and when one is warranted.
"If" one is warrented? I think the poster asks a completely fair question, that if Trey is demanding a race speech from Clinton, where's Obama's gender speech? I guess your thoughtless response of "if and when" says that you don't place gender discrimination and sexism on the same importance level as your color. What a surprise...coming from a poster named "SeriousBlack."
Tell me again how Obama's not getting votes just because he's black?
And yet you all bitch and moan...."I'm not voting for a woman just because she's a woman!!" Nice if it could go both ways.
Where did he do something suggesting he needed to make a speech about sexism? Why don't you ask McCain about this?
Did I miss the speech where Obama said Clinton can't get the logical, stand-up-while peeing, man vote? Because that would be the equivalent of Clinton's comments about "hard working, white" voters.
Many people have told you that Obama isn't getting some white votes - some blogosphere Obama supporters, some blogosphere Clinton supporters, some big-named Clinton supporters (like Ed Rendell and her husband), and of course Clinton herself in that "hard working, white voters" statement.
And who is this "you all" that are bitching and moaning about not voting for a woman just because she's a woman. There may be people on the fringe who say stupid things like that, but Obama's base are educated, younger and liberal voters - the constituency least likely to be racist or sexist. And most importantly, Obama himself has NOT actively courted or legitimized those sentiments, which really is the main thesis of the post.
Today seems to be dump on blacks. Maybe the author of this blog should have titled it, "Dump on Blacks for Abandoning the Hillary Camp". Voting for the best candidate is not racist because you share their skin color; however, if you vote due to the color of one"s skin this is racist. To vote only for a woman because you are a woman is sexist.
We must be truthful with ourselves about this primary. Obama is the presidential nominee and Hillary has lost with no possible way of winning. If your candidate is losing or winning, there is no need to degrade the other candidate or anyone posting on this comment board. We can call the candidates racist or sexist, but the true prejudices are exhibited by some of the people posting here.
To disrespect the candidates with rumors and untruths is harmful to the party. Making statements about Obama or Clinton without data to support your argument will only infuriate their supporters.
As my mother told me all my life"God does not like ugly. Therefore, be careful how you treat people. If we want change it must first start with us.
Instead of all of this bickering maybe we should be focusing on Bush starting a war with Iran before he leaves office.
If whites vote for Ms. Clinton they must be racists. What a load of crap. If true it follows that any black who are voting for Obama are also racists. Racism is not limited to white people, blacks can be, and are, just as racist as white people.
oops, error...I meant to say that Black folks do NOT tend to discredit the intelligence or capability of white people based on their whiteness...sorry
No one is arguing that if whites vote for Clinton, they are racist. No one! In fact, at the beginning of this race, most Black folk were for Clinton, with full knowledge that Obama was/is Black. In fact, Black people did not begin to move toward Obama until they/we believed that he would also be acceptable to white folks, because we know that white people, based on the social science research, are more likely to view Black people as less intelligent and less capable, simply because they are Black. Black people, on the other hand, in social science research, immediately discredit whites simply because they are white (our history has been one of giving whites the benefit of the doubt, despite lynchings, beatings, rapes and all).... I digress... Anyway, what many of us are saying is that Clinton herself is not so subtly suggesting that she should get the nomination because she can get the non-racist AND the racist white vote; Obama will lose, she is saying, because he can only get the non-racist white vote. And I would rather the Democrats ignore that argument and lose (with Obama) than validate that argument and win (with Clinton). Why? Because an election is less important than standing up for the love that we all need to be showing for one another....
Nobody said whites voting for Clinton are racist. Nobody. Many people have said, correctly, that whites voting for Clinton BECAUSE she's white are racist. Kind of obvious, but needs saying... especially because there is SO much misinterpretation going on.
Mr. Ellis,
That was not the only time. When the Rev. Wright controversy arose, she could have taken the high road and defended Obama; it would have made her more presidential and bigger in our minds.
But ambition is often blind, and her desire to win nicely was overcome by her desire to win at all costs when she fell behind, not because of sexism, as she and her feminnazi supporters assert, but because she ran a poor campaign and didn't earn the voter's trust nor did she have a pulse on what voters were thinking.
This has been a fascinating primary, revealing once and for all why so many people despise the Clintons. There is justice in the world after all.
"...not because of sexism, as she and her feminnazi supporters assert..."
_______________________________________________________________
You're obviously an admirer of Rush Limbaugh, so don't bother to defend Obama to us. I doubt you'll vote for him.
Karate Kid - can you admit tthat Obama made a mistake to continue his association with his Pastor during a national campign placing him in a campaign position, knowing as any black person must, how racist and freaked out white America can get about something like black liberation theoogy? Can you see that he not only brought this problem upon his own campaign as well as the Dems, Trinity church and yes, Rev Wright , who is a powerfully truthful speaker.Obama did not protect his community but exposed them to hate mail and death threats., not H.C., by this poor judgement.
"...not because of sexism, as she and her feminnazi supporters assert..."
How ironic.
Seriously. Not. Helping.
No she is loosing because of how she played the game and the disdain she showed the people she is now claiming to fight for. However use of such hateful terms as "feminazi" do more damage to your argument and your cause than the rest of the post helps it.
PART II
Three pages back I posted to Trey asking where Obama's gender speech is, and I talked a little about the intersection of race and gender. I thought it was interesting that I got these responses: (Continued content):
4. Bettysdad responded by saying feminism has a respected history ONLY with over 50 females who use it as an excuse to blame personal failure on gender. Ouch! (and I'm not over 50 btw).
5. Paganmist responded by saying that he/she feels that feminsm should be about equality, NOT PREFERENCE, and that the RULES SHOULD BE THE SAME. Yeah....rules the same. It doesn't matter if you need day care because you used your uterus, the rules must be the same, dammit! I think you should explain your theory to the black community. I'm sure they'll agree that affirmative action was also unnecessary.
All in all, I receive lots of snide reponses, but no support. I think this pretty much validates the fact that a gender speech is way, way overdue here, because folks definitely have problems with gender.
And by the way, to all those who attacked me for being a "whiny" clinton supporter, ...I voted for Obama. But who knows if he'll get elected when his supporters continue to treat people in this horrible fashion.
I for one would welcome a speech on gender from either candidate that was the equal of Obama's speech on race. But what should that speech say? Who should be the speaker?
Like Obama's speech on race, I would hope that such a speech would call on the better angels of our nature to raise up the country as a whole to a more perfect union. While there has been a great deal of misogyny exposed in the campaign,I would not want the speech, for my daughters' sake, to focus on victimization but to emphasize the benefits to us all from the full and just inclusion of women in all aspects of society and government.
Like Obama's speech on racism, I'd like the speaker to weave their unique personal experience into a broader fabric that speaks to and challenges us all.
To answer your question directly, I think that would be a difficult speech for Senator Obama to give effectively. I suspect that he would offend some for presuming to speak for women, and could not speak as directly to personal experience.
What Senator Obama might do I suppose.. in the example of John Edwards cited by Trey... is to say that he does not want to votes of anyone supporting him just because he is a man. But does anyone really believe that any voter prejudiced enough to vote against Senator Clinton on the basis of gender would be free enough of prejudice to vote for Senator Obama?
BTJ46, I actually agree. I think it would be a contrived speech, an awkward speech. Such speeches should come at a time and place where they have the most power and relevance. Just as Obama never really plannced on addressing race right in the middle of a campaign like he did, if one was not really needed. He had to address issues in his campaign. He did so brilliantly. So I think it's pretty darn ridiculous for Trey to be pushy and immature and say "where's hillary's race speech?" Obviously it doesn't work that way and that's why I posted back with "where's obama's gender speech?" They're both equally inappropriate.
But yes, at some point, a national conversation on the problem of sexism and women's rights is warrented for our country. And while I agree with you, when you said any speech about it shouldn't be about victimization, I don't want that a catchphrase excuse to back away from the tremendous work and strides the women's movement afforded this country. Some wrongfully believe that if you are a woman, and stand up for your gender, you're attacking men or acting like a victim. Not at all. Just as Obama's speech had no embarrassment about his people's civil rights past, no apologies for civil rights protests, no apologies for being black.......we need to get to a point where we stop apologizing for feminism. If others can't recognize and show respect, then there's no starting point for a conversation.
Maybe so. I think what needs to happen is that women need to speak out. We need to redefine what feminism is-- not simply the possession of female parts, but a ideology that supports a more peaceful, just and equal world. Clinton's vote to authorize the war, her threats to obliterate Iran, her red phone ringing in the night, and now her "hard working Americans, white Americans" comment and argument that white people won't vote for Obama so we should elect her: none of this connects with feminist ideals. If we allow our feminist movement to be reduced to simply being the breaking through of glass ceilings for privileged white women, then the feminist movement is effectively dead.
Posted May 21, 2008 | 11:35 PM (EST)