Money, Not Racial Morality, Will Force Hillary to Quit the Race
Despite growing alarm over Hillary Clinton's deeply offensive and intentionally divisive use of race to win white votes in Kentucky, West Virginia and Pennsylvania, money, not racial morality, is more likely cause the Clintons to fold their campaign tents.
Per the newly released FEC campaign finance reports as of April 30, 2008, Barack Obama held $46 million of spendable cash versus only $10 million held by Hillary Clinton. (Spendable cash is "cash on hand" minus "unpaid campaign debts.")
And Clinton's 2008 fundraising results also greatly lag that of Obama. In the first four months of 2008, Clinton generated a whopping $89 million... but Obama generated a truly astounding $160 million.
And yet, Hillary Clinton continues to proportionally spend, spend, spend at a clip far outpacing Barack Obama: at April 30, 2008, Clinton had left only 11% of campaign contributions she's received in '08, as versus 29% of '08 contributions remaining in Obama's campaign chest.
The bottom line is this: Clinton is running out of money.
And apparently, that, not shame or conscience or moral qualms about her campaign's insistent race-baiting, is more likely to cause Sen. Clinton to finally, blessedly, quit the Democratic nomination race.
Clintons Using a Racist-Based StrategyBut until her coffers run dry, many Democratic party leaders and others are saddened and puzzled by Bill and Hillary Clinton's deliberate outreach to self-admitted racist, white voters.
Speaking on CNN after Clinton's Kentucky win, David Gergen, respected Harvard professor and former Clinton administration member, called out the Clintons on their racist-based election strategy, saying:
"... about 21 percent (said) that race was a factor. Nine out of ten of those voted for Hillary Clinton... over a quarter of the people who voted for her today in Kentucky were people who said race was a factor in their decision."You know race is really playing an increasing issue. And it also raises the question in my judgment of whether she shouldn't say, you know, if you want to vote against him because he's black, I don't want your vote. I don't want to win that way. This has no place in this primary."
Moderated-minded Gergen continued in his remarks with CNN moderator Anderson Cooper:
"My sense, Anderson, is that the race card is being played more heavily today than it was in the beginning of the campaign. And that there is somehow now an increasing sense of the culture almost legitimizing racial comments by opponents."I do think that racism is starting to rear its head in ways we haven't seen in the campaign. I think it's important to take it on. And I think it's important for the Democratic Party to take it on...
"This is not a racist country. I do think these are pockets of racism, but I think it's there and it's -- if it casts a shadow over this race, it's going to be really tragic in many ways. "
New York Times blogger Tim Egan also lamented today in his eloquent piece, White on White:
"In Kentucky, over 25 percent of Clinton supporters said race was a factor in their vote – about five times the national average for such a question. Clinton, if she really wanted to do something lasting, could ask her supporters why the color of a fellow Democrat’s skin is so important to their vote."
Judging from Hillary's recent fierce, unapologetically race-based words and actions, a vote is a vote to the ambition-addled Clintons, no matter the low means used to get that vote.
And their supposed devotion to the urgent African-American drive for civil rights and fairness is starting to seem like just another political ploy they used to gain power.
And that, indeed, is sad. And so very wrong.
(Photo taken on May 19, 2008 in Kentucky: Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Related Reading
Civil Liberties and the 2008 Presidential Race by Tom Head, About.com Guide to Civil Liberty
Hillary Clinton vs. The Black Candidate
Barack Obama Fundraising Stats & Donor Info
Hillary Clinton Fundraising Stats & Donor Info
Comments
Isn’t it ironic that the political party most obsessed with racial and gender equality is now having one of their star Senators pandering to small-minded bigots?
i don’t think it’s so cut and dry. (or should i say “black and white”?) are pollsters asking whether the sex of the candidate had anything to do with their vote? if they are, i haven’t heard anything about those numbers. maybe that would be a more prominent question if hillary was the front runner.
and, yes, there are pockets of racism, and there are people who will make their choice based on that, just as there are plenty of people who will and have make their choice based on their antiquated notion that a woman doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to handle the oval office.
the argument can (and has) been made in both directions. i don’t know that it’s realistically fair to, considering both obama’s work on women’s rights and hillary’s on civil rights, call one racist and the other sexist. i understand how accesible those complaints are, given that we’re treading new ground here, but hillary clinton is hardly a racist.
in fact, she has, on many occasions, noted that people who are voting for them shouldn’t be voting based on race or sex, they should be voting based on who they think is the better candidate. she has, indeed, said that repeatedly throughout this race. it is not under her control why people vote the way they do.
i haven’t seen obama come out and say “come on, now, stop making hillary’s bitch factor, or cleavage, or any of those other talking points an issue.” so, at least, if you’re going to hold hillary’s feet to the flame on the race issue, obama should be called to make statements about why people should not vote based on their sexist attitudes. because those are still prevalent in this country, as well. nonetheless, when hillary addresses them, she is accused of “playing the gender card.”
personally, i think both of them have made it abundantly clear that they would like their supporters to support them because of their stance on the issues, not because of their race or sex. but i’m just sayin…what criticism is good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Kim, you make some very good points, my friend.
You write, “i don’t know that it’s realistically fair to, considering both obama’s work on women’s rights and hillary’s on civil rights, call one racist and the other sexist. i understand how accesible those complaints are, given that we’re treading new ground here, but hillary clinton is hardly a racist.”
I don’t believe that Hillary Clinton is a racist. But I do believe that she and Bill are so shocked over losing their dream of the White HOuse in ‘08 that they’ve lost perspective. And are uttering some regrettable words.
You also write, “if you’re going to hold hillary’s feet to the flame on the race issue, obama should be called to make statements about why people should not vote based on their sexist attitudes.”
That’s a very good point, as well.
Thank you for your comment!
I think that these campaigns bring out the worst in all candidates.