Truthdig - Reports - The Lose-Lose Race Debate

			May 17, 2008 Log in / Register
			Text Size

Trading Spaces, Iraq Edition
By Anna Badkhen

I’m From the Government and I’m Here to Help
By Eugene Robinson

A Lesson for Republicans
By E.J. Dionne

Toward a New Washington Consensus
By David Sirota

Chalmers Johnson on Our ‘Managed Democracy’
By Chalmers Johnson

Sean Penn Talks Politics at Cannes

Geoffrey Wheatcroft on ‘Muqtada’
By Geoffrey Wheatcroft

Movie Mogul Weinstein Reportedly Pressured Pelosi

President Jonah, Meet Oliver Cromwell!

Dig led by Gore Vidal

Inside the Data Mine

Dig led by Onnesha Roychoudhuri

Newsroom Carnage Continues at The Washington Post

Burma Death Toll Now at 78,000

U.S. Sergeant Refuses to Serve in ‘Illegal’ War

A Rough Day for Reactionaries

U.S. Consumer Confidence at 28-Year Low

Democrats Condemn Bush’s ‘Appeaser’ Comment

Huckabee’s Major Misfire

Bill O’Reilly Off the Hook: The Dance Remix

Somebody Get the Man a Jet Ski

DeGeneres: ‘I’m Getting Married!’

The Business of America (Paths for the Twenty-First Century)

By Saul Landau
$34.95

The Lose-Lose Race Debate

Posted on Jan 16, 2008

By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON—A truce has been called in the racial feud between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, but not before it stained both with the residue of their own follies. The peril for the Democratic Party is not as obvious as media simpletons say.

It is not only true that Clinton, if she is the eventual nominee, could suffer from lingering bitterness among African-American voters, who must turn out strongly if any Democrat is to be elected president. And it’s not that Obama will lose white women and men who have supported him in Iowa and New Hampshire, and who already support him in significant numbers in polls conducted throughout the country. These voters probably made up their minds about the two candidates some time ago.

The greater danger is that white, working and middle-class voters may turn away because the racial shouting match did not—and will not, if it resumes—speak to them at all.

The deepest division in the Democratic primary campaign until now has not been between blacks and whites, though we are likely to see stark evidence of that in the upcoming South Carolina primary. A fault line already is visible between upper-income, educated whites and those with lower incomes and less education. The upscale voters have gone with Obama, the downscale with Clinton.

The divide was hinted at as early as Iowa but went mostly unremarked in the euphoria over Obama’s win. Nonetheless, Iowa caucusgoers began to shape a profile in which Obama fares worse among those with lower incomes and among union members, for example, than he does with more affluent voters. These contours took clear form in New Hampshire.

There, Clinton beat Obama by a full 15 percentage points among those with family incomes of $50,000 or less, according to exit polls. Obama beat Clinton among those who make $50,000 or more. Clinton won easily among less-educated voters, and among union members. In short, she ran strongly among traditional Democratic groups that have been a bulwark of the party since the New Deal. Obama’s New Hampshire vote tracked closely with the slice of votes won by other Democratic candidates who ran insurgencies against the establishment—Howard Dean, Bill Bradley and Gary Hart are the most obvious examples.

Is this working-class resistance to Obama because of racism? Some of it may well be. But it certainly cannot be argued that racism caused these voters to reject white candidates such as Dean, Bradley and Hart.

Obama’s soaring rhetoric and appeal for “hope” mean a lot less to them than solid campaign proposals that address their day-to-day concerns. Bill Clinton faced media ridicule for his numbingly detailed plans. But voters didn’t get the joke. They saw practical solutions they liked. This is a big reason Hillary Clinton now mimics the approach.

Another risk for Obama is his campaign’s preoccupation with college students. In truth, less than a third of those 18 to 25 are currently enrolled in college, according to the University of Maryland’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, which studies the youth vote. That includes part-time students and those attending community colleges. Clinton, sensing an opening after Iowa, targeted young people in New Hampshire who hadn’t gone to college.

There is nothing wrong, and a lot that’s right, about engaging college students in politics. But here’s the trouble: Working-class voters don’t get excited about the size of rallies the campaigns can mount by filling them up with college kids. They agonize over not being able to afford college at all.

Here lies part of a painful Democratic Party legacy that has recently been buried, but could easily be unearthed.

In the 1970s and ’80s, many working- and middle-class white Democrats voted for Republicans, in part because of racial politics but also because they resented their own party’s drift toward what they perceived as domination by a white elite. To put it crudely, the beer drinkers distrusted the wine drinkers as people who, at best, didn’t understand their everyday concerns or, at worst, looked down on them as racist. Clinton’s presidency for a time seemed to heal the rift. Yet even after President Bush had lost favor among many middle- and working-class voters, Republicans were able to tap this vein with attacks on 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as a windsurfer who “looks French.”

If the fissure opens wide now, Democrats seriously diminish their chances for winning in the fall. And the roots of defeat will lie partly in the rancor that Clinton and Obama stirred up themselves.

Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com.

TAGS: campaign clinton democrats media obama politics race

SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
Del.icio.us Digg Facebook Reddit StumbleUpon Yahoo

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: The Pakistan Conundrum

Next item: The Dream Ticket

Jump to Comments

Advertisement

Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments Show comments Comment on this article

Show: Help?

By Dominick J., January 18 at 8:44 am #
(106 comments total)

I Can't believe CoCo is adding to the fodder

“The resulting peril for the Democratic Party is great.”

Hillary and Obama created it, said what ever it was they said and it’s over! The media picked up on it and changed some of Hillarys remarks, she clarified it. Unfortunately what the “media” said held more weight for those who don’t like her to begin with--so what? Let it be. GOP candidates have said worse things to each other and to all of us and that statment, about being in great peril didn’t come about for them. Of course they are doomed any way but......
Bottom line I don’t see it as a “peril” great or small. My opinion and I’m sticking to it!

Reply to this | Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, January 17 at 6:08 pm #
(2932 comments total)

[i]If the fissure opens wide

If the fissure opens wide now, Democrats seriously diminish their chances for winning in the fall. And the roots of defeat will lie partly in the rancor that Clinton and Obama stirred up themselves....”

How precious that the media have sought to excuse themselves/each other for their part in inflaming the otherwise insignificant into a major issue by repetitive distortions and misinformation.

Its hardly likely that Hillary Clinton could be accused of “look(ing) French” but who knows? What is wrong with comparing her with France’s Segolene Royal? Too much for the media, of course, who are totally ignorant on French issues anyway.

Interesting to note, though, that the potential losss of this year’s presidantial election by the Democrats could actually be blamed on the media. Things are going to get worse yet.......

Reply to this | Report this

By cyrena, January 17 at 10:20 am #
(4164 comments total)

Marie is partially correct here,

Marie is partially correct here, and it’s a big issue, one that is at least 200 years old, if not more…she says it here:

• Is this working-class resistance to Obama because of racism? Some of it may well be.

Probably not ‘some’ of it, but most of it. In short, working class whites simply can’t stand an ‘uppity’ Negro. The fact that Obama is not ‘uppity’ or at least no more so than any other person of any color who happens to have a higher education is lost on them. For the middle to lower class white working class, it’s simply unacceptable for a black person to have what they presume they don’t. In this case, it would be a college education and a professional career, and a taste for wine rather than beer. They simply cannot fathom it.

Where the irony comes in here, is that Obama’s education, career, or professionalism is certainly no more than Hilary’s. If anything, it is SHE from the elite background, and certainly not HIM. (his is a middle class background as well). However, because he is African-American, (or worse, biracial) he is penalized for having this education, especially in light of the fact that times are as hard as they are, and the average worker can no longer afford to send their own children to college, (that crime is NOT on Obama’s head, but they aren’t considering that)

This is the reality of the issue. To ignore it is to continue the façade. In reality, while the Democratic Party has always enjoyed the ideological attachment to the labor class, and the unions, etc, etc, that has become a mythical connection, at least since the Bill Clinton administration. As a laborer during that time, I can attest to the fact that Bill Clinton screwed the worker on more than a few occasions. Oh yes. And, Hillary’s commitment to continuing and increasing the policies of NAFTA, are certainly NOT in favor of the labor/working class. Still, she rides on that association that connects to decades past, (several) even though it is a disingenuous association.

Obama DOES use a lot of college students in his campaign, but so does Ron Paul. However, that is not the bulk of his campaign, so it is unfair to suggest that. It means bringing the younger generations into the political process, and so it makes sense to bring the college students on board. That is NOT where the grassroots nature of the Obama campaign began, and he has addressed not only blacks in depressed communities regarding jobs and opportunities to attend college, but the middle to lower class white communities as well.

The racism component will always be there, but we should see it for what it is, rather than to make a suggestion that the Clintons, (either one) have ever been particularly helpful to the working or uneducated class, because that simply is NOT the case, as evidenced by the policies of NAFTA, and the effects that those policies have had on the working class overall. They may TALK that way, and they may ride on the ‘reputation’ of the Democratic party as one that advances the interest of labor and the working middle class. But, that’s all it is. Rhetoric.

Reply to this | Hide 5 replies | Report this

By Maani, January 17 at 10:49 am #
(1271 comments total)

Re: Marie is partially correct here,

While I agree with you in principle re much of this, I take two exceptions.

First, your well-thought-out post does not take into account Obama’s surprisingly positive showing among wealthier white people. Could it be that, despite his race and his claims, they see him as someone who will continue policies that keep them above the middle class? This would certainly seem a topic for discussion.

Second, you say, “...rather than to make a suggestion that the Clintons (either one) have ever been particularly helpful to the working or uneducated class, because that simply is NOT the case.”

That is simply not true. BC signed the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which required employers to give employees leave for pregnancy or serious illness, which benefitted employees at all economic levels. He was also the first president in some time to raise the minimum wage. In 1997, he signed the Taxpayer Relief Act, which was targeted specifically to lower- and middle-income families, including an increased child tax credit.

This does not excuse him for NAFTA et al, but it is dishonest to suggest that he did NOTHING to help the working class.

As for Hillary, while there is admittedly little to point to in this regard re her political career, a look at her personal background shows that your accusation does not hold true for her either. Among other things, while still in law school, she volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide pro bono legal advice to the poor. As well, as First Lady of Arkansas, she headed the Rural Health Advisory C’te (which successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas’ poorest areas) and the Arkansas Educational Standards C’te (which successfully reformed one of the then-worst school systems in the nation, including securing funding for pre-school literacy and preparedness programs primarily for poor and underserved children). And she was involved in dozens of other child-related organizations and initiatives to assist poor and underserved children.

Again, this does not excuse he negatives, whatever you perceive them to be. But be careful not to broad-brush when it is not correct.

Peace.

Reply to this | Hide 4 replies | Report this

By Maani, January 27 at 8:28 pm #
(1271 comments total)

Re: Re: Marie is partially correct here,

Phil:

Given that you mentioned student loans, it might interest you to know that on July 20, 2007, the Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants bill came before the Senate. Hillary voted Yes. Obama voted No. The bill was a mish-mash of mostly helpful items regarding student loans and grants.

Peace.

Report this

By Phil, January 27 at 3:36 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Re: Marie is partially correct here,

The writer is saying Cyrena. Racism talk turns off the middle class and working class whites. We don’t live for it like African Americans thrive on it.

The writer is asking, no pleading, Barack to engage normal working class people with “substance”. If he does he’ll probably win. That is the writers opinion.

She is saying, African Americans clearly will vote for Barack. The rich whites are voting out of guilt and a hope for a better tomorrow. Whatever the heck that is supposed to mean. He’s missing or giving away the working class vote right now. Just admit it.

Im saying, and people like me, are saying. Help us get a grant for college. Help us get accepted into programs for college. Help us, receive financial aid for a change. If not, lower the prices of tuition where we can send our kids to school. Allow our kids to have a future!!!

Then I read your dismissal of the writers story.

“ Most of the reason for Baracks lack of supposed support is racism by the working class whites.”

News Flash, thats CRAZY.

Our kids go to school together . I grew up in the same schools. The rich send there kids to private schools. The first time a rich “ idealistic “ Barack supporter met an African American was when the Bill Cosby Show came into their living rooms.

Working Class whites can’t stand an uppity negro with a college education. Spare me.

We can’t stand young, bright, very articulate, African Americans with there whole lives ahead of them, spewing the type of garbage you wrote.

I hope you go back and read how angry you sound. Unfortunantly, you don’t understand theres a real world with real concerns that are higher on the scale of importance than African American bitterness.

Report this

By cyrena, January 18 at 1:54 am #
(4164 comments total)

Re: Re: Marie is partially correct here,

Actually Maani,

I WAS speaking about the WORKING class, and NOT the absolute poor and most destitute that Hillary has assisted. Her pro-bono work doesn’t impress me, because ALL lawyers do it, or at least they SHOULD. Pregnancy leave is NOT new, so I’m definitely not giving either one of them credit for that, and it was available in other countries before it was available here, and the protection for workers, women, and families is far better across the European Union than it is here as well.

The Family Leave Act was helpful to some workers, IF they could afford to be off without pay, in cases of emergency. (I sure hope you didn’t think they were being paid while on family leave, cause that DEFINITELY is not the case.) It simply allowed for people to take off, without pay, without fear of losing their jobs. Of course that didn’t last long, since millions have lost their jobs anyway, since 2001, and Hillary has been in the Senate since 2000, so apparently she wasn’t real worried about it.

And as we speak, Mrs. Clinton is probably heading back to wherever she came from. As it happens, she made a surprise appearance (at least to me) here on our Campus this evening. I didn’t have a clue that we were ‘expecting’ her, until I had to wade past all of the official vehicles. I do believe every public security officer in Santa Barbara County, (overwhelming white and affluent I might add) was here to protect her.

So, who’s actually playing to the white affluent here? She apparently didn’t make it to LA, where Obama would certainly be far more welcome, and has been many times. So, let’s be careful with the rhetoric, and stop claiming that Obama’s support comes from AFFLUENT WHITE people, because that’s just not necessarily the case. OPRAH supports him, and she’s certainly affluent, but she’s damn sure not white. (even if she gets confused sometimes). Many of the Hollywood types support him, but we there aren’t enough of them to pull off (alone) the support that he’s received.

So, let’s just say what it is. BOTH of them have support across the board, and Hillary has far more of the really big bucks, the CORPORATE bucks, then Obama has yet to see. Yes, The Clinton’s DO have support among much of the black population in the South, and that’s not a surprise. They have a tendency to consistently vote against their own interests. Hell, I bet a bunch of ‘em voted for Bush. Barak has support from across the spectrum, more so from the white middle class than from the black middle class, if only because there are more white middle class than there are black ones. But, he ALSO has the support of the poor and the used-to-be middle class, which Hillary does not. It’s that simple. That’s why she was in Santa Barbara County this evening, and not in LA County. Very big difference there. Oh yes. This is CONSERVATIVE territory here, and that’s where Hillary feels most comfortable. Nobody around here is looking for any ‘change’.

And like I said, I was speaking to the WORKING class, who in real terms, fare worse than the poor that you are addressing, because the poor already get basic benefits and help that the working poor generally ‘earn’ just a tad too much to qualify for. That’s why they ‘used-to-be’ middle to lower middle class, and now their just trying to stay alive long enough to work those three jobs.

Bill Clinton’s NAFTA was far more debilitating to the working class than you might want to admit, and he did his own fair share of busting up unions. So like I said, I was referencing the working classes, WHATEVER color they might have been.

So, be careful not to broad brush when it is not correct, or at best, very misleading, since it doesn’t even count the larger majority of the population. Sounds good on a resume, but that’s pretty much the extent of it. Oprah could say the same thing about those schools she started in Africa.

Report this

By driving bear, January 17 at 12:11 pm #
(234 comments total)

Re: Re: Marie is partially correct here,

some of things you site as Hillary’s strong point will be used against her.
1. her pro bono legal work , the fact that her main client was a Black panther will be used against her.
2. on education . true her and Bill moved AK from last to 49 th in nation , however it will be pointed out that Huckabee moved Ak from 49th to 8 th, a big blow to her.

Report this

By RdV, January 17 at 9:50 am #
(176 comments total)

Take note

The race-baiting came from the Clinton camp but it is spun as a shared blame.

and, of course, the obvious solution to the class dilemma is Edwards--but he isn’t part of the pundits conversation since they always bow to their corporate overlords---and we all know how the corp fears Edwards.

Reply to this | Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, January 17 at 8:10 am #
(564 comments total)

I know people don't want

I know people don’t want to hear it. It’s a volatile issue. And it’s not simply black and white.

I find it interesting that race--a real American issue--can’t be talked about in a debate.

But, then, we don’t DEBATE poverty, education, the environment, the economy, the infrastructure or any other pressing American issues. You hear a little about the war. But no debates. Real debates. Real facts. Real truth. All soundbytes and slogans. Empty rhetoric and promises.

We know before one of these “debates” begins exactly what it’s going to be about.

Reply to this | Report this

By jackpine savage, January 17 at 6:42 am #
(703 comments total)

Excellent Analysis

Thank you, Ms. Cocco.

The White House is the Democrats’ to lose, and the primary campaign sometimes looks like they are intent on losing it...what a shame. Two people powered by their personal ambitions, perhaps, more than a desire to serve their country.

They should be asking not what their country can do for them, but what they can do for their country.

Reply to this | Hide 2 replies | Report this

By Maani, January 17 at 8:02 am #
(1271 comments total)

Re: Excellent Analysis

I cannot agree. Although immigration is certainly an important issue, it runs behind the war and economic policy (among other things). And in this regard, there is no question that that WHOEVER is the Dem nominee will beat WHOEVER is the GOP nominee since (i) all GOP nominees are for openly continuing the war (particularly McCain and Giuliani), and (ii) the Dem economic proposals have it all over the GOP proposals (at least those that have been articulated).

As well, by the time the actual presidential race heats up, you cn be sure that the Dem nominee will have a more nuanced immigration proposal, one that is more palatable than their current ones, and not that far removed from the GOP proposal.

Finally, let’s never forget that primary campaigns and presidential races are NOT (and should not be) determined by the media: pundits, pollsters, etc. have been notoriously wrong in the past, and that is not likely to change. So while it is certainly important to read what’s out there and find out how the media is reading - and spinning - campaigns, and while some pundits, etc. will certainly be more accurate in their assessments than others, don’t make the assumption that most of them are correct.

Peace.

Reply to this | Hide 1 reply | Report this

By driving bear, January 17 at 12:05 pm #
(234 comments total)

Re: Re: Excellent Analysis

I disagree with your analysis on a few points.

1. that the democratic candidate will be viewed by the public as the Anti-war candidate. In 2007 the democratic controlled congress has done nothing to end the war and I personally believe the democratic candidate for president therefore will have an uphill battle to secure the antiwar vote. I can see both the GOP and democratic candidates being perceived as pro war

2. As for immigration I don’t see the democratic candidate being tough enough on immigration to win the white vote without losing the Latino vote and the liberal base of the party.

3 As for the economy, at the present time the future of the economy is too uncertain to make a prediction. However if Hillary wins the democratic nomination look for the GOP to pound her on the fact she has proposed 800 billion in new spending.

Report this

By troublesum, January 17 at 5:39 am #
(314 comments total)

You have to wonder about

You have to wonder about Obama if George Will likes him. That is a cause for concern.

Reply to this | Report this

By driving bear, January 17 at 1:23 am #
(234 comments total)

The resistance of the working

The resistance of the working class to both Obama and Clinton is due to their weakness on the immigration issue. This is one issue where the GOP will pounce on them in the fall. FYI 78% of Americans want the border with Mexico secure. By trying to gain Hispanic votes by being soft on illegal immigration will cost the dems more votes of white Americans that they will gain.

Reply to this | Report this

Add Your Comment

Robert Scheer's new book offers first-hand insight into the presidential mind

Gringos in Paradise

The Business of America (Paths for the Twenty-First Century)

Jr. Spaghetti Tank