Home Subscribe Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Opinion


SHERMAN FREDERICK: Hillary's best hope: racism

'Working class' means 'white'

Democrats bristle at talking about this in plainer terms. They say Sen. Hillary Clinton has found her base -- the "working class." That's why she won in the Rust Belt primaries. That's her great hope in Kentucky and West Virginia.

But calling Clinton's strategy one of kowtowing to the "working class" doesn't quite say it, does it? Isn't this just old-fashioned racism within the Democratic Party?

When Hillary strategists say they are winning the "working class," they don't mean they are winning working people with a household income of, say, less than $50,000. All the exit polls show quite clearly that lower middle-class people who work split between Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Clinton. The difference is generally skin color. Hillary wins the lion's share of the "working-class" white Democrats. And, sadly, as Hillary's campaign has become meaner and more to the point, that margin has become bigger.

The Clinton racism strategy first became apparent in Nevada, when her struggling campaign began to publicly talk about her "Hispanic firewall" against Obama among the rank-and-file in the Culinary union. It hit the national consciousness soon thereafter when former President Bill Clinton, after Hillary lost the South Carolina primary, dismissed Obama's big win as a race-inspired victory akin to Jesse Jackson's success in that state years ago.


Most Popular Stories
  • SHERMAN FREDERICK: Hillary's best hope: racism
  • J.C. WATTS: Your side, my side and the truth
  • J.C. WATTS: Social conservatives still a political force
  • JOHN BRUMMETT: It's the worst of all worlds for the DemocratsCommentary
  • EDITORIAL: Billing Mrs. Fossett
  • EDITORIAL: Just 'trust our incumbent senators'
  • LETTERS: Tipping 'expert' a total cheapskate
  • ERIN NEFF: They just figured it was a lingerie supplier
  • LETTERS: Judge gave drunken driver a wrist slap
  • LETTERS: If you follow orders, no one gets hurt



  • The record clearly shows that Hillary's campaign was the first to use Obama's race against him. The strategy gained an unexpected boost when Sen. Obama's former pastor, the egomaniacal Rev. Jeremiah Wright, cribbed the Obama spotlight only to show the world that racism could be a black thing, too. The opportunistic Clinton campaign shamelessly took full advantage of the tension. They not only raised questions about what the Wright debacle meant for an Obama presidency, they slyly positioned Hillary, like a latter-day George Wallace (the Alabama governor, not the very funny Las Vegas comedian), as the "working-class" candidate.

    She was the candidate, as one union worker called her, with "testicular fortitude." She drank boilermakers. She bowled. She even challenged that "latte-drinking" Sen. Obama to roll against her. Her campaign reinforced the idea that she was the only candidate willing to look after "working-class" folks in Washington.

    Don't fool yourself for a minute by entertaining the idea that the Clinton campaign didn't know what it was doing. Hillary and Bill knew. It was their plan. They were getting their butts kicked by the Obama campaign and rapidly reaching the point of no hope. If they were going to win, they needed a game-changer, and that had to be a profound fear of Obama.

    That fear of the different guy, combined with Obama's pastor disaster, paid off. Not only did it give them late wins in important states, it gave them cover to make a thinly veiled racial appeal to the ruling class of the Democratic Party -- the "superdelegates."

    The "superdelegate" whisper campaign goes something like this: Hillary is better built to win in November. Obama is soft and elitist. He's a dangerous unknown quantity. But most importantly, Mr. and Mrs. Democratic Insider Superdelegate, look at the voter numbers in key states. Forget about pledged delegates, wins and losses and overall popular vote. Look deep into the numbers of the key states Democrats must win in November.

    Do you see those "working-class" numbers? Those are Hillary people. Those are the people who will win the White House for Democrats this fall. Those are the people who count because, faced with a choice between Obama and Sen. John McCain, "working-class" Democrats will vote for McCain.

    It's a disgusting display for which Democrats ought to be alarmed and ashamed. The remedy is this: Stop calling Hillary's base the "working class" and start calling it what it is.

     

    Where you been?

    You may have noticed that I have not written a Sunday column in a few weeks. Contrary to popular opinion, I have not been lounging about enjoying another gorgeous Las Vegas spring. I've been right here working. Besides wrestling with this nasty old "recession" as your publisher, I've been spending time delving into one of the mysteries of the Internet -- blogging.

    You can verify this by going to the Review-Journal Web site (www.LVRJ.com) or my page directly at (www.LVRJ.com/blogs/sherm).

     

    Trust your publisher

    Regular readers will know that on March 9, I passed along a tip from a local developer I trust who said he saw signs that the Las Vegas housing decline may have bottomed out in February. I suggested that if you wanted to snag a bargain, now's the time.

    More than a few of my friends gave me much ribbing for that tip.

    Now come the April numbers and ... well, it looks like your publisher was right. The inventory of homes for sale has stabilized and April home sales are up over April 2007.

    Don't get me wrong, it's still a tough market for sellers. But it indeed looks as if February may have been the bottom. It's not too late for buyers looking for a discount, of course, but may I suggest you trust your publisher next time he passes along a hot tip.

     

    Sherman Frederick (sfrederick@review journal.com) is publisher of the Review-Journal and president of Stephens Media.

    Links powered by inform.com


    Leave Your Comment 139 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Lamb wrote on May 15, 2008 11:16 PM: No good points!! When I use hillary's scrip for calling voters you use her polices and senate record. you can get the script off her website.

    Obama's calls involve smearing.

    Nobody can say this is a lie and if they do, why? your just hurting yourself and your country. Why do people want to lie for someone they don't even know or will probably never have even a five minute conversation with?
    After this election these people will be ghost and passing policies and real things that will make our lives better or not so great. that's what matters. people are treating this election like a beauty contest. why?


    MICAH wrote on May 15, 2008 11:12 PM: DID YOU NOT READ WHAT I WROTE

    I STOPPED WORKING FOR THE OBAMA CAMP BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD TO HAND OUT "FREE" TICKETS FOR HIS "TOWN MEETING" EVENT LESS THAN 50FT AWAY FROM AN EARLY-STOP AND VOTE. NOT ONLY IS THAT ILLEGAL IT'S LAME AND SHAMEFUL.
    YEAH I'M A HILLARY SUPPORTER AFTER THAT CRAP. TYPICAL.

    AS for facts I sat in on conf. calls from the senor staff of the obama camp. You are talking to me as if you know me. I'm just telling people here what i saw and did. you know whatever believe it or not whatever.
    "it's an ironic that i based my facts on actions of his supporters." I was a supporter...your perceptions can't be too close to anything if you can read a simple paragraph and get any of those facts right.

    all i can say is I made my decision and i'm cool with that decision. i made it on what i saw and heard...tangable things. not msnbc, cnn, fox or this internet blog world.
    there is nothing in this for me to lie about obama or hillary i have to live in this country and i want the best option. so i'm going to chose who has better policies and i'm sorry but her's is slightly better. but i have to say working in close contact with the cape in N.C. tipped me over. my school UNCW was crazy for him. but i don't vote idiology or lame things as change. this might be "typical" but anything but bush is change


    Micah wrote on May 14, 2008 02:34 PM: willis, you are still talking like a typical hillary supporter. That's the thing you cant shake off. you say you were canvasing the streets with hillary supporters....and you were working for obama? what the hell....

    but as for my question, i clarified it...I don't know why you are pretending as if a genuine response would contribute nothing to my perception....but as I expected you knew little if anything about obama...and from what you know, it is interestingly only the 'facts' that the hillary camp chooses to misleadingly use.....am i to still think you worked for obama. please.

    but the most ironic part of it all is the fact that you made your judgments based on the alleged actions of his supporters while you say something like this "I'm not saying Obama is racist. If anything he is trying to neutral." and then you say "he's lies are everywhere to see and people still stick up for the man."

    so which is it? ..and you worked for obama again? lol


    on a side note, edwards won 7% of the votes in WV....yeah...its the blacks that are racist.:rolleyes:


    ? wrote on May 14, 2008 08:56 AM: But, while he remained silent about the allegations of racism, he gave speeches across South Carolina that warned against being "hoodwinked" and "bamboozled" by the Clintons. His use of the phrase is resonant. It comes from a scene in Malcolm X, where Denzel Washington warns black people about the hidden evils of "the White Man" masquerading as a smiling politician: "Every election year, these politicians are sent up here to pacify us," he says. "You've been hoodwinked. Bamboozled."

    By uttering this famous phrase, Obama told his black audience everything it needed to know. He was helping to convince blacks that the first two-term Democratic president in 50 years, a man referred to as the first black president, is in fact a secret racist. As soon as I heard that Obama had quoted from Malcolm X like this, I knew that Obama would win South Carolina by a massive margin.


    by Cinque Henderson wrote on May 14, 2008 08:50 AM: Let's begin with the locus classicus of Obama love, Andrew Sullivan's encomium in The Atlantic. He writes:

    Earlier this fall, I attended an Obama speech in Washington on tax policy that underwhelmed on delivery; his address was wooden, stilted, even tedious. It was only after I left the hotel that it occurred to me that I'd just been bored on tax policy by a national black leader.

    This is presented as a confession, and Sullivan honestly admits his reaction is based on his stereotyping of blacks. Add to that another Obama supporter, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, calling Obama the first black politician to "come to the American people not as a victim but rather as a leader." You hear this kind of talk all the time. Never mind the dignified glories of Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King Jr., Colin Powell, Kurt Schmoke, and others. We have arrived at the crux of the matter. So much of the educated white people's love for Barack depends on educated white people's complete ignorance of and distance from the rest of us. Barack is the black person they want the rest of us to be--half-white and loving, or "racially transcendent," as the press loves to call him. And, since picking a candidate makes you allies with his other supporters, why would I want to be allies with educated whites whose glorification of Barack depends in large part on their implicit denigration of the rest of us?


    micah wrote on May 14, 2008 08:35 AM: what was your questions. I mean really does it matter that answer it because your going to say i'm lying. Like that I didn't work for the Obama camp? ok..sure? I live in a state in which 1/3 of the dem pop is black. I canvased the streets of black neighborhoods with black friends of mine that supported Hillary and the responses we got are exactly what I've talked about below. My friends are in the age bracket of 45-60. We canvased neighborhoods for 5 hours on weekends and at least 2 during the week. But of course your going to call me a liar. www.myspace/oam6000/


    Obama: not racist wrote on May 14, 2008 08:28 AM: From Dreams of My Father:
    "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

    From Dreams of My Father:
    "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother?s race."

    From Dreams of My Father:
    "There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white."

    From Dreams of My Father:
    "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

    From Dreams of My Father:
    "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, Dubois and Mandela."

    From Audacity of Hope:
    "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."


    Micah wrote on May 13, 2008 11:59 PM: To all those who are perceptually challenged. Let's make something clear regarding the 'black vote'.

    Obama isn't the first black person to run for president. He is however the first to ever get the majority of the black vote. If what you are saying is true that blacks are voting SIMPLY because he's black, that nullifies that argument.

    Secondly, Hillary had the black vote starting off and only lost it substantially after Bill Clinton-South Carolina slip up and subsequent other attempts at portraying barack as the "black candidate" by the use of black hillary surrogates.

    Now as far as whites go, it's ludicrous that people are trying to compare white prejudice with black pride when whites have voted FOR whites for hundreds of years. Blacks have been voting at the same rate FOR white candidates for as long as they've been allowed to vote. When blacks were giving 90% of their vote to bill Clinton, were they being racist?

    You guys can choose to remain ignorant all you want but the truth is blacks aren't voting AGAINST Clinton since we all know they started off supporting her overwhelmingly. They are voting for obama because after all, this is the only time they've ever had a chance to vote for a viable candidate who is of their ethnicity...so sue them for having 'a dream'...but of course most of you don't know what that's like so you equate blatant racism by unlearned, unsophisticated whites with blacks wanting to see part of MLK's dream finally realized.


    Micah wrote on May 13, 2008 11:40 PM: wrong wrong wrong willis....the wright controversy had nothing to do with blacks supporting obama. You are mixing up the order of events. He was getting a vast majority of the votes even before anyone heard anything about rev. Wrong.

    so now you're argument is that you don't support obama because those that support him are racist? lol what kind of fatuous logic is that? How do you explain the fact that "dumb white people" as you put it, vote for her but those that are educated don't. Conventional wisdom would tell you that the educated are typically more likely to make objective decisions than those who are "dumb". I would say that more than anything legitimizes his candidacy.

    At any rate, you never adequately answered my question. It's interesting you picked the most commonly cited vote by the clinton campaign about obama's voting record. You also don't understand the reason behind the vote. Truth be told, in the short time he's been in the senate he's authored, co-authored and gotten passed more bills than clinton has in her long tenure in the senate. Of course, you wouldn't know that because I'm pretty sure you never really worked for Obama, or at the very least visited his site to actually find that out.


    To Micah wrote on May 13, 2008 08:59 AM: I'm not saying Obama is racist. If anything he is trying to neutral. It's his camp that is doing the work and Wright helped. Clinton did have a good chuch of the black vote but after Feb~ the Wright video hit the air and that's when the black vote shifted and new black voters came into the ring. I think it's wonderful we have new voters but is because of race? I mean why didn't they support him before Feb?

    And now that there are a couple states left with dumb white people and not a lot of AA now we are calling HRC the racist? How is she the racist it's jus an exit poll stat that white people are voting for her.



    I never said Obama was racist but the people that vote for him ( not all ) are. And mean too. When I worked at the the New Hanover Region for Clinton we had 55-60 year old women holding signs that said Honk for Hillary. Within one hour 4 people cars had gone by yelling obama and f*** you. or giving her the finger? I don't think Obama would like that. remember if Hillary doesn't make it to November. And I mean..doesn't switch to independent...how is Obama going to get the votes from all of the people his camp has been extremely mean to?

    At the Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Raleigh...which I went to. Obama supporters jeered at the two-term Governer for supporting HRC...at a dinner. I voted for purdue even though she supported Obama before our state voted.


    Read All Comments