Hillary's case is not an attractive one, because what she'll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.
White Men
Posted April 20, 2008 | 10:50 PM (EST)Here's another thing I don't like about this primary: now that there are only two Democratic candidates, it's suddenly horribly absolutely crystal-clear that this is an election about gender and race. This may have always been true, but weeks ago it wasn't so obvious -- once upon a time there were eight candidates, and although six of them withered away, their presence in the campaign managed to obscure things. Even around the time of Ohio, when there were primarily three candidates, the outlines were murky, because Edwards was still in there, picking up votes from all sectors.
Yes, Nora. It was always true. Black folks have known since "Pig" Penn's creating the "Obama as drug dealer" accusation, since Bob Kerrey's "Obama attended a 'secular madrassa'" distortions. More importantly, Hillary Clinton knew before then.
Don't you feel foolish now?
But now there are two and we're facing Pennsylvania and whom are we kidding? This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don't mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can't even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder -- after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn't believe any of those articles.)
To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday's primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain's temper will be a problem, don't bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what's more, they think it's normal.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Newsvine
Furl
Google
Yahoo
I remember very early in his
I remember very early in his campaign that John Edwards made the claim that he was the most credible candidate precisely because of his presumptive ability to appeal to white men. At the same time Edwards's wife was saying that he was placing third because he was a white man. With all deference to Dr. Spence, that was the fishbone which prevented me from supporting Edwards. In 2000 Howard Dean made the same arguement. I'll say it again, popular white candidates always use appeals to race and ethnicity. Even in his race against Nixon, JFK made explicit overtures to Dixiecrats.
Hillary won PA? significance?
Hey all....hearing on the wire that Clinton pulled PA (which I wasnt surprised at...given that what PA outside of Philly is like) but, given my rather simplistic notion of the American Presidential primaries, what is the significance? Hasn't she lost already? Is there a predetermine gap between candidates that must be reached before the other is disqualified? Granted, I see no real change coming from either of the three getting into office ("lubricated or studded" is how I view that choice) but given the gap already, what manner of chicannery can she unleash that will justify her continued presence in the race? I mean, outside of just calling Obama an uppity N****r on tv (which, if we are honest with ourselves, would probably get her elected into office) which she has been hinting at throughout.
Sorry, the essay seems like a complete muddle to me
Sorry, the essay seems like a complete muddle to me.
If she resents White men, I understand, but the assumption that we're a meaningful bloc is falsified by exit polls and other information. Given a Chi Square statistic, you can prove that there is a statistically significant tilt of White male votes, but you're better off using other brackets, such as income and scholastic achievement. According to CNN, 59% of voters were women, and while HRC had a 14 percentage point lead among women, and BHO had a 4 point lead among men, gaps by age or religion (Protestant vs. Catholic vs. "all other") were far more important.
Also, she brings in a lot of irrelevant crap. OK, so White men are lousy romantic partners (so date someone who isn't one; problem solved, no?). But she's assuming that we vote because we are more bigotted against the other group, which cannot possibly be tested--as she knows. And she's talking about voting in the general election as the fulfillment of a personal promise, which she of course doesn't have.
In fact, the whole essay is a pastiche of remarks that have no meaning at all. White men determine the outcome of the election? In the sense of what positions the candidates endorse, she would have a point, but that's not the sense in which she meant it. In the sense that our turnout is higher? But it's actually lower than White women, and there's more women in the older age brackets because women live longer and are in better health. In the sense that White men are monolithic? But we're not--and split cohorts don't decide things, cohesive ones do.
BTW, I have a horrible, pathologically bad temper, I know it, I'm ashamed of it, I hate myself because of it, and as far as I'm concerned, JSM is just a waste of oxygen. I agee his horrible temper is a character flaw and bars him from the office.
BTW, I have a horrible,
BTW, I have a horrible, pathologically bad temper, I know it, I'm ashamed of it,
Maybe, but you are infinitely patient with your infant son. I would trust your finger to be near the nuclear button but not McCain's.
Thanks, PT
Thanks, PT.
I would trust your finger to be near the nuclear button but not McCain's.
That's because McCain and I get mad at the opposite sorts of people. And the people I get mad at, can't be nuked. (I'm looking at you, Sen. James Inhofe).