This is silly. Yes it was not worded carefully but it was accurate. In fact, if she had NOT qualified her statement with the 'white voters' term then her statement, literally, would have been a lie, since black Americans are ALSO hard working Americans and they AREN'T supporting Hillary. Much ado over nothing.

She's not a racist, but she's willing to appeal to racism, just as she has been appealing all along to the sexism of the many women who would vote for any female over any male candidate.

She'll do anything to win, and white racism is all she has left. It shows the kind of President she'd be. It's against this that Obama has been running, all along.

No one is paying attention now, but you better belive the Republicans will be paying attention in November.

I don't think Hillary meant it as racist, but if it's her argument that Obama can't win over the rural/blue collar/white vote that is ludicrous and detrimental to the party. Does she assume that she will then get the black vote? If you break it down it certainly has racial overtones that are more reminiscent of Republican hate/fear politicking.

I have to conclude that she is deluded that she can still win this nomination. If it goes to a brokered convention she will certainly lose the young and maybe a good portion of black vote to protest non-voting. Then she is certainly doing damage to the aprty that will take generations to recover.

She is taking one of the biggest non-war gambles of all time.

It's Frank James, Obama's attack poodle, doing his "anyone who disagrees with me is racist" schtick.

Not to be taken seriously.

Why should Hillary be given any consideration regardless of her position in the political race?

She is still in it and should receive appropriate criticism regardless whether it appears to be "needless piling on".

She needs to receive the same criticism as she has shown the other Democratic candidates - RELENTLESS!

Come on guys this is just another attempt by Frank James to call anyone who attacks Obama a racist. James columns are to be taken as seriuosly as a cloumn form imbaugh, Olberman, Mathews or all the other partisan hacks posing as journalists now a days.

Obama's been getting off easy from Frank James and his ilk all year long for his sexist remarks about Hillary. Why shouldn't she?

Obama can't jump on her for equating "hard-working" with "white," nor for saying that the whites who vote for her won't vote for him in November, nor for implying he can't win because he's not white, or implying that uneducated whites are a more important part of the Democratic base than blacks. If he criticized her for saying any of those things it would be heard as whining.

But I'm waiting for the media and for Democratic leaders to jump on her. I'll probably be waiting a long time, though. Like as long as we'll have to wait for the media to ask Clinton and McCain who their pastors are, how often they go to church, and what their pastors' politics are. Especially I want to hear and see some scrutiny of McCain on the issues of the religious leaders supporting him.

Fair's fair, if people are going to go after Obama for talking about "typical white people" then Hillary should get questioned about this. It's a two way street.

The reason this hasn't been picked up by the media is that Obama hasn't thrown every supporter and resource he has into the cause to make this a big story.

If his actions parallelled Clinton, we'd already be inundated with Obama ads attacking Clinton for the remarks, Supporters making statements of condemnation, and big staged gatherings of non-white leaders to show solidarity against her comments.

Let's give the man credit when it's due for actually living up once in a while to his "new politics" claims. Here's an obvious example of how his politics are different from Clintons.

Clinton and McCain are able to use implicit racial appeals because Obama appeal is a coalition, not just black voters. Sharpton and Jackson could not expand their voter base the way Obama has, but if Clinton can make Obama play the race card, that weakens his appeal/

Plus, there are few groups that are as privileged as white women. Most affirmative action beneficiaries are white women, live in neighborhoods that have been red-lined for generations, etc.

As the joke goes, to gain equal rights, white women burned their bras. To gain equal rights, black people risked being burned alive.

Really Mr James. I'm also sure that you have payed attention to how the MSM, and definitely most of the blog-o-sphere, were actively participating in a smear campaign of Hillary's white base because they overlap with McCain's base. The whole time making sure that people knew Hillary Clinton was backed by uneducated white middle income voters. From the begging of the campaign Obama surrogates were busy littering the internet by telling us how Obama "attracts the educated anyway." Telling any person to "get informed" irrelevant to the dialog. All the while implying that race was the only factor that explained why white voters pick Clinton over Obama. I'm mean you just had to be a racist if you were white and backed Clinton. All this in the primary season topped off by Obama's "out of context" comment about a group of voters whose lack of support for him could only be explained by a need to cling to guns, religion, xenophobia, anti trade, and anti immigration. This comment just happened to overlap with the same demographic - blue collar white voters - that support Clinton, and could possibly swing for McCain. So here she is using the term white voters. Surely your over-sensitive receptors picked up that after this whole bash on Clinton's support group, or what could be McCain's, Clinton wouldn't remind people that this potion of America shouldn't be type cast as the stereotypical unintelligent white voter that hides behind their gun and religion. These white voters that support her are hard working blue collar workers. They're not just a pawn you can take for granted now, bashing their worth, only to figure that they'll just come around given the alternative in the general. You might want to take both his comment and her comment and contrast side by side like all the shrills that use that game to nowhere of "hypocrisy" that fills up the internet. It makes for good sensationalism. I'd like to look at it in terms of progression.

I don't really care what Hillary has to say anymore, she's already finished, if she want's to go down the tubes this way and possibly even lose her Senate seat in 2012, that's her problem.
-
I'm already looking forward to the Obama/McCain debates this fall.

Come on guys this is just another attempt by Frank James to call anyone who attacks Obama a racist. James columns are to be taken as seriuosly as a cloumn form imbaugh, Olberman, Mathews or all the other partisan hacks posing as journalists now a days.

Posted by: Vinny | May 9, 2008 2:01 PM

Obama's been getting off easy from Frank James and his ilk all year long for his sexist remarks about Hillary. Why shouldn't she?

Posted by: Jeff | May 9, 2008 2:06 PM
-------------------------

HAHAHAHA!
-
The Republic Party is scared to death of facing Obama this fall otherwise you wouldn't have died in the wool GOPer's (see above) still on here defending an already finished Clinton campaign.

"This is silly. Yes it was not worded carefully but it was accurate."

Posted by: sbj | May 9, 2008 1:20 PM

So where Obama's "bitter" remarks, but he took a pounding.

And when you bother to read Rev. Wright's words, he wasn't too far off the beaten path either - just ask the conservative pastors who have been criticizing, not the government (as Wright did) but the people.

Yes, of course no one in the white media circus was going to make much of this. But had Obama said that "black people were never going to vote for Hillary," he would have taken a beating and likely might have lost the nomination.

This country ain't right. It just ain't right.

As the joke goes, to gain equal rights, white women burned their bras. To gain equal rights, black people risked being burned alive.

Posted by: KXB | May 9, 2008 2:48 PM

There's a reason why it's a joke.You can't argue that with a straight face. Once again you can not and will not be able to effectively hedge sex and race and come out with a clear winner. I assume you are aware that as much as affirmative action will remain a main stay topic in our country, so will a woman's right to choose. Irrelevant of how you feel for the topics themselves the truth is it's hard hedging two minorities, minorities not in numbers but in voice, and be able to say, "hey, they got the better end of the deal." That would be like trying to determine if the attribute of being female or the attribute of being black makes it more difficult to be a black woman.

Posted by: John E | May 9, 2008 3:54 PM

You are in luck, Obama's response to a Clinton win in PA, even before it was known how things would go in NC and IN, was to pretend he was the nominee opting to talk about John McCain instead. And they say Hillary feels entitled. So the new Swamp direction is nothing new. Except maybe it will make them look bad in hindsight when people analyze the role of the media in this historic election. Anyhow, I'm sure you are looking forward to those debates. You've perfected the art of tooting left wing talking points ;), and that type of election match up provides just the right environment for your drool. Good luck though, there is a reason why the mere mention of Obama's middle name sent off 600+ posts on the Swamp. The Republicans are in the wings waiting for the match up. They don't care who it is. They'll show up just the same for either. You might need C.Morris to make up more alter egos to back you up then. : 0 )

"BIG MAMA SPEAKS"

I'M NOT A "BOEHNER" WITH TOBACCO MONEY! I'M TELLING YOU THE TRUTH!
BOTH MEN WANT TO "DELIVER" BUT ONLY A "WOMAN CAN"
I'M NOT A "BLUNT" WITH PAC MONEY.
RICK RE NZI RE NZI "TOOK OF THE GLOVES" I TOLD THE TRUTH.
SAGGY BOTTOM NO BELT WEARING BROTHERS & SISTERS ARE NOT GOING TO SHOW UP TO VOTE! I TOLD THE TRUTH.
"RUSH LIMBAUGHS" CROSSOVERS AND NOT GOING TO "FOLLOW" OBAMA, THEY ARE "FOLLOWERS" LOST SHEEP THAT GO WHERE "THE CHAIRMAN TELLS THEM TO GO"
I TOLD THE TRUTH. I DIDN'T CHALLENGE HIS "BLACKNESS" BLACK PEOPLE DID. I DIDN'T CHALLENGE HIS "WHITENESS" GLENN BECK DID! I TOLD THE TRUTH!
"DOOLITTLE" THE MATH!
THE BLACK VOTE IN "IRAQ" IS CAGED!
"HISPANIC VOTES" ACROSS THE COUNTRY WENT UNCOUNTED, AND THEY HAD A "DRIVERS LICENSE"
I TOLD THE TRUTH! AMERICA JUST CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. OBAMA KNOWS IT WAS TRUE. MCCAIN SAYS HE IS "HAMAS" ON MONDAY, AND "HEZBOLLAH" ON TUESDAY.
I TOLD THE TRUTH! BLACK WOMEN IN AMERICA ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE BLACK!
HE'S THE SAME MAN, AS THE THE OTHER MAN! HE'S JUST A MAN! I TOLD THE TRUTH. HE'S NOT WILLING TO "SWAP LAND" HE'S NOT WILLING TO GIVE "IMMUNITY AND PROTECTION LIABILITY"
I TOLD THE TRUTH AND I'M WHITE, BUT I'M ALSO AMERICAN IN AMERICA!

The Republicans are in the wings waiting for the match up. They don't care who it is. They'll show up just the same for either. You might need C.Morris to make up more alter egos to back you up then. : 0 )

Posted by: Sam Adams | May 9, 2008 4:35 PM

-
You've been drinking to much of your own home brew dude.

I'm glad the GOPer's are "waiting in the wings", and they're going to continue waiting in the wings for the next eight years too because no one in their right mind is going to vote to give BushCo a third term by electing John McBush....MJ.

I guess Hillary didn't think the superdelegates were jumping to the Obama side fast enough. This'll help them along. Thank for helping to wrap this up Ms. Clinton.

I don't find her remark particularly offensive. I find her calculated motive behind the remark particularly offensive, in fact, despicable. 'nuf said.

National PATRIARCHY radio was ALL over Hillary for this==this, why BLATANT statement of FACT!
At least she had enough class to say it behooves the Dems to wait as LONG as possible to make sure Obama's not part of some major indictment from the Rezko trial--which goes to the jury next week.
What an easy rest of the 'news' week the media got--bashing Hillary---chasing Barack around for his big photo op.
Say, what happened in Gary, anyway?

Posted by: John E | May 9, 2008 6:07 PM

Then pass me some of what your sipping on, dude. That way I can go around accusing others of being "MJ" without proof, and make pointless comebacks. What difference does it make if Republicans will loose? It doesn't change the fact Republicans are waiting it out, and will come out once the Dem nominee is set in stone. Talk to me about home made brews then; when the equivalent of the Obamamaniacs- the right version, doesn't leave you time to go around after "MJ"; or Jeff or Bill or Leo T or Juanito or JB or Don B or whoever your new arch enemy for preemptive strikes is that month.

Aside. Yes, her motive behind the move is particularly offensive. The MSM, or rather the internet pundits, only notices the folly in pegging a candidate as the shoe in candidate for white voters when they're not the ones bringing it up as such.."Hey, who does she think she is trying to pass herself off as the candidate for white voters. That's our job." He did say it, the MSM said it, the internet was full of it....white people are surely going to vote for Hillary. Or, it will be hard for him to bring in the white vote so Hillary has an edge. "Is America Ready for a Black President." She's not making herself into that candidate, she was pegged into that role early on in the primary as a negative thing. The "whites" choice. Now, that she's decided to embrace it as a positive thing playing it up as hard working whites it's bad; especially after his comment was a blank statement on the profile of that group left those people sour. It's always bad as long as it's in any other context but racism. When it's racism, it's a good thing to peg the candidate as a white candidate. No one notices there is something wrong with that then.

She is foul. A desperate woman who is shell-shocked by the fact that America doesn't share her sense of entitlement. Obama 2008

GO HILLARY GO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's always bad as long as it's in any other context but racism. When it's racism, it's a good thing to peg the candidate as a white candidate. No one notices there is something wrong with that then.

Posted by: Sam Adams | May 9, 2008 7:24 PM

I'd also like to have some of whatever you're smoking too...

They don't even include the entire comment; and the relevant part is only a few sentences long. They are showing there bias against Hillary Clinton. When you are talking about white people and you say that they are hard working, how does that take away from anyone else? It's like me saying that I'm a proud American and someone from another country saying; how come you think that I'm not proud, do you Americans think that only you can be proud of their country? My reply; shut up you brain dead moron, me being proud of my county has absolutely nothing to do with you being proud of your country.

RNC Bruce @ The Kids,

Apparently y'all don't realize how LAME your attack the messinger posts are. But even that pales compared to your phony support of Hillary.

What a bunch of wha, wahs.

I just want to say this is much ado about nothing. She never said anything that wasnt true Bama lama has lost a lot of the white vote in indiana and all she said was she thinks she gets at least 60 percent of the white vote in michigan. You all are crazy to think hillary or bama lama have any chance to be the next president. one is a socialist nazi and the other is a racist scumbag terrorist. my vote goes to as some numbnut said mcbush.

YeeeHaaa!

When a Democrat makes such a blatant statement, it's called "accurate."

When a Republican makes the same statement, it's racist!

YeeeeHaaaa!

Don't you just love playin' both sides of the race card?

YeeeHaaaa!