The 'white voter' business

Hillary Clinton has been criticized -- here and elsewhere -- for pointing out that Barack Obama's support among white voters is shrinking again.

Should we have a problem with that?

Oh, I don't know. There are, unfortunately, people in this country who will never elect a black man (or woman) president of the United States. I'm guessing most of us think this is ridiculous, but if we rummaged through our personal phonebooks, I'm sure we could come up with at least one friend or relative who -- for whatever reasons -- feels this way.

But, despite the inference of this in Sen. Clinton's statements, I don't think that's the point. The whites who aren't supporting Obama aren't necessarily unenthusiastic because of his race. At least that's not what the poll data is showing.

Some relatives this weekend said that if Clinton isn't the Democratic nominee, then they are probably going to vote for McCain. I don't think this is because of Obama's race. I think they just don't like him. Yet.

All of this could change. But, while we're waiting, pollsters are asking endless questions about race and gender and whatever else is shaping people's decisions.

I suppose Hillary could not mention voters as being black or white, but the whole business of campaigns is structured around this data. Even if we were talking about two white candidates, we'd still be discussing how they're faring in different communities.

I can understand some people being sensitive to this, but is there any way to ignore it? if Hillary didn't discuss it with the media, the media would discuss it without her.

Meanwhile, what about the big Veep question? I can't imagine Obama asking Clinton to be his vice-president under any circumstances but I've been wrong once or twice before.

Will he? Won't he? Should he?

Comments

[lwt]

obama could resurrect john adams and i still wouldn't vote for him. this election has put to rest any lingering belief i might have had that our democratic process matters. sure i can vote, but i don't think it makes any difference. for whatever reason, the party bosses don't want hillary. even when she was ahead, there were rumblings of she should quit for the good of the party. this past week end, there was all this talk of obama is now ahead of hillary in superdelegates. if hillary was ahead before, why was the party not more supportive of her? i'll bet my next week's paycheck that if the two contested primaries, [florida and michigan] had gone for obama, the party would allow those states to have a voice in the convention. i was lukewarm on obama before, but if i thought he won the nomination fair and square, i would vote for him. but now, i feel as if the decision was made a long time ago and the democratic party is determined to shove him down my throat. i don't accept that. i will either skip the election in november altogether, or write in a candidate without a chance of winning. does jasper have a middle name?
good morning terri, tom.

[nan]

well I continue to be impressed with Obama...will vote for him --will vote for Hil if she pulls this out....just read the nytimes editorial a week or so ago about McCains policies and you might gag...
No way would he choose hi as veep.....she could never stay in the back seat.....

[Nancy in Nutley : )]

i'm with you nan. i don't get how obama has been "shoved" down anyone's throat. frankly, they thought they sunk him with the wright nonsense, yet he survived all of that. he's still got my vote.

it's interesting how the process doesn't work when it doesn't work the way we hoped it would. when was hillary ever ahead?
lwt-party not supportive: hmm maybe because they know something we don't and they don't like her?
a vote for hillary is not far from a vote for mccain imho.

anyone who wants real change in politics will consider obama. clinton is old school politics she's proven that over and over again, that's what's losing her numbers. even the super delegates want change (the reason some who originally backed hillary are now behind obama).

hillary is the same, not change.

ps. obama IS winning fair and square.

[dawniris]

Hillary made these comments last week; I brought it up yesterday in the "Primaries" blog when I commented about it there:
http://njmg.typepad.com/ervolino/2008/05/primaries.html?cid=114160874#comment-114160874

Since Hillary Clinton is running for president, I feel her comments were racially divisive and somewhat dismissive. I felt that she not only dismissed her black supporters (and Black Americans in general), but she also dismissed all non white Americans.

Most importantly, I think that Hillary Clinton exposed how she really feels about Barak Obama, not as a presidential candidate, but as a black individual pursuing the presidency. To me, it seems she feels entitled to the presidency due to her race and name. How can she honestly and positively lead us forward when she's got backward, elitist thinking like that?

Another thing, these are her comments, in her own words and not the comments of her pastor's or anyone else's opinions. Therefore, it's fair for anyone to question her about it or to judge her by it.