Dirty tricks pay for Clinton in PA- Negro Loses
/BY MARY MITCHELL Chicago Sun-Times
"Why can’t Barack Obama close the deal?” Hillary Clinton asked a couple of hours before claiming victory in Pennsylvania. It was an interesting question considering that Clinton already knew the answer.
Clinton banked on the strength of Gov. Ed Rendell’s observation that conservative white voters in that state would not vote for a black man. I traveled across Pennsylvania with the Obama bus tour, and tens of thousands of white men and women turned out at his rallies.
But early on, Rendell boasted that the discomfort of white voters with a black candidate may have accounted for 5 percent of the votes he racked up against Lynn Swann, a popular former NFL player, in that state’s gubernatorial race.
Obviously, there are people in this country who are not yet ready to see a black man elected as president, just as there are people who aren’t ready to call a female commander in chief. Still, it is appalling that any candidate in the Democratic Party —the party that has benefitted from the blind loyalty of black voters —would stoop to exploiting bigotry in order to win the election.
Rendell was never taken to task for his remarks, nor was he demonized the way mainstream commentators demonized Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor.
Clinton didn’t feel compelled to distance herself from Rendell’s views, even though those views run contrary to the mission of the Democratic Party.
According to exit polls, the flurry of last-minute attacks helped Clinton pull out a win. Undecided voters also said they made up their minds after the last televised debate.
Without a doubt, the debate forum has played to Clinton’s strengths, and the controversies over Wright’s remarks and Obama’s characterization of some Pennsylvania voters as “bitter” hurt Obama.
Ironically, Clinton’s lies about her experience in Bosnia didn’t appear to have hurt her at all, while Obama’s association with people whites believe are unpatriotic continued to dog him throughout his campaign in Pennsylvania.
For example, when interviewers gave Clinton an opening during the recent ABC debate, she again brought up Wright and also found a way to remind white voters that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s name had been linked to Obama’s name in some way.
Obama had already rejected and denounced Farrakhan. He had also denounced remarks made by Wright. Clinton’s reference to both of these men was intended to shake up whites.
Given what is at stake in this historic election, I’m not surprised that the campaign turned negative.
But in winning Pennsylvania, Clinton may not have proved that the majority of voters favored her message as much as she affirmed that a percentage of voters couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black candidate.
Had Clinton challenged Rendell’s inappropriate comments, just as Obama used the Wright controversy to talk about race, I could respect her victory.
But she didn’t.
She won ugly.
Given the acceptance of Clinton’s divisive campaign strategy, I have to question whether the Democratic Party is really the party of inclusion.
"Why can’t Barack Obama close the deal?” Hillary Clinton asked a couple of hours before claiming victory in Pennsylvania. It was an interesting question considering that Clinton already knew the answer.
Clinton banked on the strength of Gov. Ed Rendell’s observation that conservative white voters in that state would not vote for a black man. I traveled across Pennsylvania with the Obama bus tour, and tens of thousands of white men and women turned out at his rallies.
But early on, Rendell boasted that the discomfort of white voters with a black candidate may have accounted for 5 percent of the votes he racked up against Lynn Swann, a popular former NFL player, in that state’s gubernatorial race.
Obviously, there are people in this country who are not yet ready to see a black man elected as president, just as there are people who aren’t ready to call a female commander in chief. Still, it is appalling that any candidate in the Democratic Party —the party that has benefitted from the blind loyalty of black voters —would stoop to exploiting bigotry in order to win the election.
Rendell was never taken to task for his remarks, nor was he demonized the way mainstream commentators demonized Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s former pastor.
Clinton didn’t feel compelled to distance herself from Rendell’s views, even though those views run contrary to the mission of the Democratic Party.
According to exit polls, the flurry of last-minute attacks helped Clinton pull out a win. Undecided voters also said they made up their minds after the last televised debate.
Without a doubt, the debate forum has played to Clinton’s strengths, and the controversies over Wright’s remarks and Obama’s characterization of some Pennsylvania voters as “bitter” hurt Obama.
Ironically, Clinton’s lies about her experience in Bosnia didn’t appear to have hurt her at all, while Obama’s association with people whites believe are unpatriotic continued to dog him throughout his campaign in Pennsylvania.
For example, when interviewers gave Clinton an opening during the recent ABC debate, she again brought up Wright and also found a way to remind white voters that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan’s name had been linked to Obama’s name in some way.
Obama had already rejected and denounced Farrakhan. He had also denounced remarks made by Wright. Clinton’s reference to both of these men was intended to shake up whites.
Given what is at stake in this historic election, I’m not surprised that the campaign turned negative.
But in winning Pennsylvania, Clinton may not have proved that the majority of voters favored her message as much as she affirmed that a percentage of voters couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a black candidate.
Had Clinton challenged Rendell’s inappropriate comments, just as Obama used the Wright controversy to talk about race, I could respect her victory.
But she didn’t.
She won ugly.
Given the acceptance of Clinton’s divisive campaign strategy, I have to question whether the Democratic Party is really the party of inclusion.
