  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Clinton’s Pragmatic AppealPosted on Feb 6, 2008By Marie Cocco WASHINGTON—Kitchen-table worries trumped even the charisma of Camelot. This theme has sounded again and again since the Democratic primary contests began, yet neither the national media nor, apparently, the Obama campaign can hear it. The deafening buzz that heralded Barack Obama’s supposed surge of support heading into Super Tuesday was drowned out by the quiet casting of ballots. Traditional Democrats gave Hillary Clinton convincing victories in most of the largest states, where votes had to be won among economically and racially diverse groups and where the most delegates were at stake. Obama racked up huge margins in smaller, caucus states, the sort of contests where liberal activists dominate. In California, the biggest prize and the most significant national political bellwether, neither Kennedy magic nor Oprah enthusiasm could carry the day for Obama. The media are blinded in these lights, utterly unable to see the appeal of Clinton’s prosaic promises to improve voters’ personal bottom lines. This is what propelled her to earlier victories in New Hampshire and Nevada, and remains at least as powerful—maybe more so, as the economy slides further downward—as Obama’s pledge to bring about change. Exit polls showed that 90 percent of those who voted in the California Democratic primary, which was open to independents, said the economy was “not so good” or poor. Among these voters, Clinton bested Obama by 10 points. Obama won just 39 percent of those who described their family’s financial situation as “falling behind.” If the Democratic nominee does not represent these people, then who, exactly, does? We already have a party that fails to speak to them, address their problems or lift their aspirations. It’s the Republican Party. Super Tuesday, muddled as the results seem to be, tells us one thing very clearly. Obama has not expanded his support much beyond African-Americans and upscale, educated whites. In the middle is a hole at least as large as the much-discussed chasm between Republican front-runner John McCain and conservatives who rebel against his candidacy. The great divide in the Democratic contest continues to be between those who earn more than $50,000 annually—mostly Obama supporters—and those who make less and who consistently support Clinton. Exit poll results from across the country confirmed that Clinton continues to attract support from ethnic minorities other than African-Americans. In California, Latinos voted for Clinton 2 to1. Among Asians, her margin over Obama was 3 to 1. This is in a state where Obama’s multicultural appeal was supposed to lift him to victory. It fell flat. Still, the Obama campaign vows a war of attrition against Clinton, and the Byzantine delegate-selection rules of the Democratic Party allow him to wage it. But what is Obama’s message to those Democrats—women, working-class voters, Hispanics, the elderly—who find little inspiration in his oratory of hope? Maxine Waters, an African-American congresswoman who represents South-Central Los Angeles and who endorsed Clinton, put it aptly: People in her district “don’t need more hope. They need help.” Obama and his adoring acolytes remain deaf to this message. “I want to speak directly to all those Americans who have yet to join this movement, but still long for change,” Obama told cheering supporters during his election night celebration. “They’re afraid. They’ve been taught to be cynical. They’re doubtful that it can be done.” Really, now. Most elderly Americans don’t want to join a movement, they just want someone to protect Medicare. Most working-class people aren’t afraid of some vague conspiracy among Washington lobbyists, they fear losing their jobs and their homes. Women weren’t “taught to be cynical.” They’ve earned their cynicism through years of being underpaid at work and undervalued in society. Do not wonder why Obama, despite his own best efforts and that of the media, can’t knock Clinton to her knees. She is not propped up by some menacing “Clinton machine.” She has no overwhelming campaign war chest—Obama’s team now brags openly that he can raise more and outspend her all the way to the Democratic convention. She does benefit from Bill Clinton’s aura, but even he was kept under wraps, or at least forced to stay on message, in the days leading up to Tuesday’s vote. Hillary Clinton is still standing for the simple reason that she has convinced millions of core Democratic voters that she will stand up for them. Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Millions Without a Voice Next item: So Much for Conventional Wisdom Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Shadrach, February 9 at 11:43 pm # Oh Marie, you’re breaking my heart. I have always looked to your columns as a breath of truth on the economy and its rising inequalities. Never afraid to hit perceived wisdom with a dose of reality. Now your hitting me. Its true, hill’s winning with the poor, just like bush with Kansas. But you give me hope, you’re not singing her praise just making a point, so can my guy go populist? The economy’s crashing and has a long way to go, time might be right...But can a black man do it without freaking everyone out? i doubt it. But Can a corporate lawyer who stopped trusting herself years ago? Yes we can
By Joe, February 8 at 8:52 pm # Author Cocco plays the blues with: “..unable to see the appeal of Clinton’s prosaic promises to improve voters’ personal bottom lines.” This one gots me a little baffled. It is true that Hillary’s proposals are prosaic. How is this a good thing? As for the second quote, no specifics are offered showing that Hillary’s solutions for the elderly are any better than Obama’s. Her ready acceptance of special-interest money is especially disturbing in this regard. This article is full of hollow, made-up assertions. To Truthdig Admins: I pray you will not, as you sometimes do, have the author change her article in order to make the criticisms by posters seem unfounded.
By Conservative Yankee, February 8 at 6:04 am # Get off it already?Not a chance… Hill-the-business-shill is a corporate whore. First I use open secrets too! While you list the “top contributors to both campaigns, you fail to note for the readers who these people and entities are. (for example Citigroup hoping for a bail out from their 10 Billion mortgage fraud write-down, gave as above) The same site you list above described Citigroup as follows: “Citigroup Inc Hummm sounds like they have an agenda for working stiffs? and each of the entities you list has a similar note… Did you miss that? Second; I’m no fan of Obama either, I have mentioned in my posts that his corporate lawyer skills have been used to the benefit of himself and his wife at the expense of the US taxpayer, for an instance his wife’s seat (which had hardly gotten cold from the absence of Hillary’s butt) on the Walmart board. Where she, like Hill-the-business-shill before her, said not a word in support of labor reforms which might have benefited that company’s beleaguered workers. Get this straight Hillary troll, I’m not here to please you or pet any rich establishment trash who ignore the guy running a Newark Diner, or woman racking clothing in some discount house, in favor of the Banks which have been ripping us off for the last 35 years. Did you know that Citi is charging 35% on some of its credit cards? When I was a small boy in New York, they arrested my grandmothers neighbor for “Usury” at the time (early 1950’s) he was charging $5 /$100 over 30 days. This is the type of loan most poor folks need, but are unable to obtain from “authorized” creditors. I will probably hold my nose and vote for Obama. I don’t buy his cynical exploitation of the words “hope” or “We” I don’t think that he is currently any less of a shill than Hillary, I give him consideration because he is young, and has the same opportunity to convert to the force for good that Hill-the-business-shill had when she began lying, cheating and stealing back in the 70’s. Obama gets no pass from me.. I had considered McCain until I heard him speak yesterday. More War, permanent tax cuts for the rich, more judges like Roberts, and less respect for the “WORLD COMMUNITY” On the issues which would make me vots third party (like immigration reform) all candidates remaining are in favor of cheap undocumented labor to smash This is the WORST slate of candidates of any election during my lifetime… I’m hoping for a political plague!
By me, February 7 at 4:56 pm # Same o same oI see the same names here over and over pontificating to each other and occasionally pausing to feed carnivoressly on any thing (meaning person) who happens to disrupt the flow with an actual attempt at the exchanging of opinions. Boring Guess I’m better off reading the articles here and ceasing to wonder what others are thinking because you “others” aren’t thinking you are just repeating yourselves. I don’t think of that as progressive, I think of it as regressive.
By Cgibbs, February 7 at 3:53 pm # playing the race cardNobody wants to say it, but I believe the real reason Hillary played so well to asians and hispanics is that many of them will not vote for a black man. Economic standing had very little to do with it.
By Conservative Yankee, February 7 at 2:39 pm # Re: Re: No. Third. Term.“Unless you have some concrete information to the contrary, don’t engage in insupportable speculation.” Sort-of-like your speculation that Hill-the-business-shill did some good on Walmart’s board of Directors.... I’m still awaiting you to outline those environmental changes she supposedly made while she ignored the underpaid, under insured workers.... One thing I will say Maani… You have the balls of a brass monkey!
By Conservative Yankee, February 7 at 2:22 pm # I want to win too BUTBert and you feel you win if Hill-the-business-shill is president? Or just will any generic Democrat do?
By Conservative Yankee, February 7 at 7:24 am # “Hillary Clinton is still standing for the simple reason that she has convinced millions of core Democratic voters that she will stand up for them.” They must not be watching very closely. Hill-the-business-shill spent ten years on the walmart board as Walmart fired people for talking organization, She never “stood up” for the employees who had no health insurance and earned a substandard wage for the 28-hour-week which Walmart policy claims is “full time” She never “stood up” for the citizens of Arkansas when she was the attack dog for Tyson Chicken, which by coincidence was her husband’s favorite campaign contributor. During her reign at Tyson they were allowed to dump waste into the Whitewater River, hire illegal aliens, and pay substandard wages which forced Tyson’s “full time” workers on to the food stamp roles. Hill-the-corporate whore supports continuing a foreign policy which allows the USA to use poor young folks without other option to fight for corporate entities which then turn around and screw them when they return home. Outsourced jobs, unlimited H1-b visas, amnesty for 20 million folks who came here illegally at the behest of the corporate campaign contributors who want ever cheaper labor… Yeah, Hill sounds like a real good bet for South Central, Lawrence, Gary, South Bend, Patterson, and Bridgeport. I’m sure if I was poor and educated under “no child left behind” I’d vote for her too! |
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article