In making her case for why she should stay in the race, Hillary Clinton went even further than her husband did back during the South Carolina primary:
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
Clinton’s blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions. The Obama campaign, looking toward locking up the nomination, stepped up pressure on superdelegates who have the decisive votes in their race.
(…)
Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.”
And here’s the audio:
Understandably, Clinton’s statement is generating quite the buzz this morning. Andrew Sullivan, for example, notes this undeniable truth:
Does she hear herself? “Working, hard-working Americans, white Americans.” “Whites in both states.” If a Republican said this about a black opponent, his career would be in jeopardy for racism.
While Sullivan is probably correct, the fact that he is reveals the existence of something of a double standard when it comes to dealing with Republican and Democratic comments about race-related issues. And, in Hillary’s defense, she is stating, albeit via an incredibly bad choice of words, a demographic fact.
What’s significant about what Clinton said, though, is what she didn’t say:
The clear implication of Clinton’s argument is that, because whites are voting for Clinton rather than for Obama in the primaries, it therefore follows that many of them will not vote for Obama in November. Okay, so can we likewise presume that, because blacks are voting for Obama rather than Clinton in the primaries, it similarly follows that many of them will not for Clinton in November? And if not, why not? Is Hillary simply taking the black vote for granted? I think she is, and I think she needs to be asked: why is it acceptable to take the black vote for granted, while the white vote must be earned? Do tell, Senator Clinton.
An excellent point. After all, Barack Obama has been winning the black vote by overwhelming margins since the primaries started. What makes Hillary think that all those voters will come back to her if she’s the nominee, especially if she manages to take the election away from Obama in a way that the public perceives to be unfair ?
And, at least one political analyst doesn’t think that Clinton’s argument amounts to much:
Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton’s comment was a “poorly worded” variation on the way analysts have been “slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms.”
However, he said her primary support doesn’t prove she’s more electable. Either Democrat will get “the vast majority” of the other’s primary election votes in a general election, he said
True. However, if November turns out to be as close as current polls seem to indicate it will be, then it won’t take the action of a “vast majority” of the people who supported Clinton or Obama in the primaries to have an impact. If even a small percentage of Clinton’s supporters vote for McCain over Obama in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Michigan, it could prove to be enough to tilt the election in McCain’s favor.
In any case, as McQ notes, the Democrats should be concerned no matter who the nominee is:
[W]hile the polls say now it may be a tight race, we really won’t know until the Democratic nominee is named and the electorate is more focused. But this has to be - in an election year everyone predicted would see the Democratic nominee waltz into the White House - of concern to the party.
And there isn’t anything they can do about it at this point but hope for the best.
