Here is my problem with what she said:
Quote:
|
Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again,
|
If she said working class white americans - no problem at all. However, to blatantly infer that the wealthy, educated, black, or any other 'Obama' group are not hard working is offensive. Her consituency is mostly retired people and women(a large portion of whom are homemakers). Both of these groups are worthy of our respect, but to claim that Obama's supporters are not hard working people(who apparently are only middle/lower class white people) is offensive.
And this constituency that she 'owns': she BARELY wins. In Indiana - under $15,000 (42/58 Obama); 15-30 (56-44 Clinton); 30-50 (51/49 Clinton); 50-75 (52/48 Clinton); 75-100 (49/51 Obama); 100-150 (54/46 Clinton). It isn't a very convincing argument if the other candidate does just as well as you do.
She did win whites 60/40. But looking at the quite similar example of Wisconsin - Obama won 54/45 among whites. It has not been proven that Obama cannot win among white voters.
Hillary's main constituency(no matter what she may say) is women - who are primarily democratic anyway. Obama's best constituency is blacks - who are primarily democratic.
What Obama brings to the democratic party is that he brings out black voters and new voters, who traditionally do not vote as much as other groups. He is also exceptional at fundraising. These traits not only signal potential electoral strength, but also a large 'down ticket' benefit - which is incredible important with the Census(and the redistricting that will come from that) coming in 2010.
Clinton is stronger in a larger demographic - but she has not demonstrated that she can bring in new voters. As the democratic party has proven in the past 2 elections - it needs something new.