janicegwashington's Blog

Welcome to the Roland S. Martin Newsletter.
 
Excuse me if a look of bewilderment continues to cross my face when a surrogate of Sen. Hillary Clinton, or even the candidate herself, starts off on the we-need-hard-working-white-workers-to-win-in-November mantra.

In fact, the candidate herself has now made that the primary - and latest argument - that she is making to the superdelegates in order to convince them that she's the best person to beat Sen. John McCain in November.
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she told USA Today. They said she cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Now, I know I'm not one of those hard-working white Americans she's talking about, but the reality is that hard-working white Americans alone will not put Sen. Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama in the White House.
African Americans alone won't do it.

Young voters alone won't do it.

Seniors alone won't do it.

The college educated alone won't do it.

The no-working Americans alone won't do it.

Gays and lesbians alone won't do it.

Non-religious voters alone won't do it.

Veterans alone won't do it.

Hispanics alone won't do it.

Women alone won't do it.

In fact, Democrats alone won't do it. You also must take a good portion of independents.

No Democrat can win the White House unless they are able to pull from all the various constituencies in the country, and it's downright silly for the Clinton campaign to continue to assert that when it's all said and done, hard working white votes are the only votes that matter.
Sure, they'll contend that that's not what they are saying. But it sure sounds that way (and no, I don't agree with what's being said on blogs that this is playing the race
card).

But it's downright silly.

Is Clinton suggesting that the whites that voted for Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire (where she beat him by around 8,000 votes), Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington state, Minnesota and so many other states were phantom voters? Were they not hard-working white voters? Were they only the "eggheads and African Americans" who Paul Begala referred to on CNN on election night?

Look, I get spin. And I get that Clinton must figure out some kind of argument that makes sense for the superdelegates to go her way and ignore Obama's lead among pledged delegates, the popular vote and state's won. But when a Democratic candidate continues to ram home this notion that hard-working white Americans somehow are the bedrock foundation of the Democratic Party, it's just not true.

Clinton wants to make the argument that her white working class support in Ohio and Pennsylvania - states the Democrats need to win in November - shows she's the best choice. But one major failure in Clinton's argument is the assumption that all of the traditional Democratic constituencies will continue to offer her broad support if she's the nominee. And considering her high negatives, she can't afford any erosion. Obama could make the case that she has failed miserably in the primaries in garnering young voters and African Americans, and without them, she loses.

Not only that, the Democratic Party has a chance to expand the map beyond the battleground states of Ohio and Pennsylvania. If you look at the presidential map, Democrats have a solid shot at winning Iowa, New Mexico, Missouri, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada and New Hampshire. Of those states, Obama won four of the seven, and had narrow losses in New Mexico and New Hampshire.

Small states? Sure. Winnable? Absolutely. Their electoral votes count as much as the big states.

If the Democratic Party is serious about winning, they are going to have to put on ice this notion that white working class voters, or any other constituency, are the be-all-to-end-all in November. Winning the White House, no matter the candidate, is about building a true broad coalition, and how else to judge that than who has done that in the primary? If it's Obama, he's the nominee. If it's Clinton, she's the nominee.

That should be on the mind of every superdelegate, and not the debate over which ethnic group reigns supreme at the ballot box.

 

As usual, I am amazed at how blatantly biased the mainstream media is in its reporting, in general.  Their picking and choosing of what stories to report during critical election period has become even more obvious and disgusting.  I wonder why, since pastors and their comments are so interesting to mainstream media, why the following story regarding Hillary Clinton's pastor went unreported!

The blogs are talking about it, but the mainstream news is not. Still, this is interesting. Blogs such as AdvanceAmericablog, commondreams.org, the National Journal’s Hotline, and wakeupfromyourslumber.com are talking about the scandal that has enveloped the former Pastor of the Clintons, but it appears only the Utica, NY newspaper is covering the story. The rest of the mainstream media is silent. Perhaps the story isn’t divisive enough for the mainstream media to take notice. Of course, it is as unfair to blame Hillary Clinton for her former pastor’s abuses just as it is unfair to blame Barack Obama for Rev. Wright. Still, that means the mainstream media is far more enamored of condemning Obama for his Rev. Wright’s tirades about 9/11 and race than it is concerned with the plight of a seven year old girl abused by Hillary Clinton’s former pastor. From the Utica Observer-Dispatch:

 

 

UTICA -- When the Rev. William Procanick put his hand on the Bible during his sex-abuse trial in Oneida County Court earlier this year, he swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified. "As a minister of God, you got on the stand and you lied," Dwyer told Procanick, the 54-year-old former pastor of Resurrection Assembly of God church on Kirkland Avenue. A jury found Procanick guilty Jan. 22 of first-degree sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child.

Let me be clear here. Hillary Clinton has nothing to apologize for, nor should she feel tainted because her former Pastor, William Procanick has been convicted of sexual child abuse of a seven year old girl. By the same token, Barack Obama has no responsibility for the words of Rev. Wright, nor for the words of his successors in the pulpit. All of these people have personal responsibility, and Rev. Procanick is going to be answering for his crime. Hillary Clinton has no need to “denounce and reject” the man. Indeed, it may be a good thing if she were to express her sorrow for his crimes and compassion for those the man hurt. But she has no obligation.

 

 

The irresponsibility here is on the media, who wish to blow out of proportion those issues which will inevitably divide Americans, by focusing on the behavior of Barack Obama’s former Pastor, while ignoring other transgressions by the pastors of Presidential candidates, even though Hillary Clinton’s former Pastor has actually been convicted of a crime.