I don’t think there’s a taboo about discussing race. I do think there’s a taboo about implying that race is a reason not to choose the black guy.

That’s the most concise way I can put it, as it relates to the context I gave this statement in my posts above.

My candidacy appeals to younger voters.
My candidacy appeals to Catholic voters.
My candidacy appeals to lower-income voters.
My candidacy appeals to women voters.
My candidacy appeals to independents.
My candidacy appeals to westerners.
My candidacy appeals to Latinos.
My candidacy appeals to white voters.

Obviously the last one is not allowed, but the others are allowed. (By “allowed” I just mean the candidate can say it without generating outrage.) Why? (I’m asking this honestly to try to think it through, not trying to be a jerk.) Is it because white people are assumed to share only one thing, which is racism? And therefore they should not be appealed to as a constituency because appealing to them must mean appealing to racism? Or is because we’re all so on-edge about race that we’re supposed to pretend (but only sometimes) that it doesn’t exist as a demographic? Or we’re allowed to acknowledge when candidates appeal to non-white voters but not when they appeal to white voters? (But why is that?) Or some other reason? What I’m trying to focus on here is not the usual knee-jerk anti-Clinton or pro-Clinton dichotomies, which I’m finding to be pretty tiresome; I’m trying to think about the rules that govern what is socially acceptable to say and what the logic is behind it.

Hillary is running for president. Her comments occur in that context, and also in the larger context of previous racially charged comments from her campaign and/or supporters. Hence the dynamic I described above.

I understand that Hillary is attempting to describe a demographic with her comments; toward what end? They’re surely not random musings - campaigns devote a great deal of effort to shaping a message, and staying on message, and there’s certainly no reason to believe this is any different, especially given prior statements.

Why the need to talk about this “hard working … WHITE” demographic? What’s the purpose of it? I don’t see any, other than the one I described.

I don’t think there’s a taboo about discussing race. I do think there’s a taboo about implying that race is a reason not to choose the black guy.

I have a brother who’s well to the left of anyone who frequents this site, and who favors The Baloney Sandwich over any of the presidential candidates (”It’s nonviolent, noncharismatic, non-toxic … and if you’re hungry you can eat it!”) Here’s his take on the campaign thus far:

“As for the election, I’m with Jeremiah Wright, i.e. vote for Obama
then fight against his lethal policies once in office.

Race an issue in the election? That just doesn’t

BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG
BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG
BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG
BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG
BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG

seem very realistic to me.

(that’s 50 bullets of accidental white supremacy, no matter
how many Black police we badge up.)

In other words, Bill and Hillary and the media didn’t
mean to behave like that. It was an unfortunate accident.

cheers”

What I find fascinating, as an observer of this campaign, is the nature of the taboos that exist around talking about race. It’s fascinating to me what kinds of speech are allowed and not allowed, and I am trying to understand the patterns and wondering about who enforces these rules about what’s allowable and why. No wonder it is so hard to have a “national conversation about race” — it’s a total minefield.

Of course, you are welcome to call out anything you find objectionable; your conscience may call you to do that and I respect that. It’s just curious to me that some Obama supporters still seem to be obsessed with findings things to criticize about Hillary. She’s not the opponent anymore.

One more thing: you describe the media as a neutral observer (in contrast to Hillary). I don’t think so. Everyone’s got a motive.

Why is there any need at all for her to discuss who “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans” will vote for, while saying ““I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” and “There’s a pattern emerging here” ? She is saying in unmistakeable terms that she should be the nominee because she attracts those “hard working … WHITE” voters, and Obama doesn’t. With the clear implication that this would also hold for the general election (otherwise why bring it up, why does it matter?) In other words, even though the black guy has more votes and more delegates, the white woman shoud get the nod because certain white people won’t vote for him. Is there actually any other way to read this?

It’s not “Hillary bashing” to call her on it when she makes objectionable statements, any more than it’s just “Bush bashing” (the original version of that phrase) to call Bush on it when he says somthing objectionable. Or to call anyone on it, when they make objectionable statements.

While I agree that the Clinton campaign has skirted the edge of good taste with some race-related issues, I also agree with Digby’s point that it is very odd that the Clintons are “not allowed” to say things that all the commentators are saying. E.g., it is OK for pundits to go on about how Obama is likely to win NC because of the large AA population, but it is not OK for Bill Clinton to say that Obama won SC because of the large AA population. It is OK for pundits to talk about white working class voters, but not OK for Hillary Clinton to talk about white working class voters. I understand that issues of race make everyone nervous, but there does seem to be a bit of a double standard here.

Honestly, I think Obama supporters would do better by avoiding the trap of “OMG I can’t believe she said THAT!!!” and instead just focus on putting forward a positive view of your candidate. We all know that Obama is going to be the nominee, so now would be a great time to stop the Hillary-bashing, as it really doesn’t serve any purpose anymore (if it ever did).

What Hillary said doesn’t exist in isolation, and was one of several statements from her campaign tinged with racism. Ferraro and Cuomo come to mind, among others. And Hillary’s statement was the most nakedly racist of the bunch.

Political strategists will naturally look at demographics and such in running campaigns. But Hillary’s implication that Obama should not be the nominee because she draws white voters who won’t vote for a black man (which is the gist of what she’s saying - how else can it be taken) is more than a little racist … especially considering that she trails Obama in votes, delegates, and even in “superdelegates” according to recent estimates. As Hillary supporter Charles Rangel said, ”I can’t believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.

Or as Bob Herbert summarized the meme, “He can’t win! Don’t you understand? He’s black! He’s black!”

“The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It’s a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.”

I don’t think Hillary herself is particularly racist, but I do believe, from all I’ve seen, that she’s a deeply cynical politician. A deeply cynical politician - who ever HEARD of such a thing!??? Shocking, I know. And at this point, let’s face it, her campaign is on the ropes - nothing to lose by trying to upset the applecart and change things up any way possible. I think that’s a better take than that she was merely tired and misspoke, given all the background to this.

hrc (to my knowledge) has tried to explain/apologize her “hard-working white american voter” statement aned never will seeing that is her only bloc next to being up +20 in white females aver 50. If she pullds 8% of the black vote in WV/KY/IN/PA how will she win the GE?