"...the history of race that runs across America's history like a scar, and I think it goes a long way to explaining the difference in how the two have been treated. (I also think the Clinton campaign will turn out to have been an influential force in lessening this distinction.)"

If anything, I think that Sen. Clinton's campaign raised racist arguments only previously heard at the edges of modern racial denegration: That somehow an educated African American was an "elitist" and disconnected from not only the needs and aspirations of other, more common African Americans, but was less aware of and even dismissive of the needs of working class whites.

I fail to see how a female educated at Yale, who then entered into professional and political circles of power and presitge was more connected to the needs of the middle class/working class/minorities (white, hispanic, or black) than a Harvard educated African American who spent his professional career as a community activist, local and state representative, and U.S. Senator, talkiing to those very constituents and representing their aspirations and needs.

I don't criticise Sen. Clinton's representation of her own positions. Rather, I strongly criticise her characterisation of Sen. Obama and his biography, resume, and positions.

concerning the fair questions raised in your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs: you are right that no one would have made those presumptions (about Obama's disconnect and Hillary's greater empathy with the working class/blue-collar American) before hand, but in fact, once they got to know the candidates, many people from these groups especially, undeniably did, and I contend that it wasn't racism. There was the 'bitter' remark, where Obama more or less told a well-heeled group, 'hey, get a load of these yahoos I met out on the stump!' There was all that stuff--trivial by itself maybe, but altogher, at least worth questioning, about his refusal to wear a flag pen; his wife's "THAT's AMerikka!" and 'she had never been proud to be an American until a black man had a chance to be president.' and the connections with the former 60's radical Ayers who set bombs here and there and never apologized for it, and sitting in that church for 20 years (or about 10 years longer than when Oprah had "heard enough" and left...(GD! America indeed).... Hillary was thoroughly outspent, and especially by the time all the contests of Ohio, TX, Penn, WVA, IN, KT, etc., yet she won them all. If one is truly honest, one would have to come to the conclusion that the people in these states believed that she tried harder to understand and speak to them without condescending, that she might even take a shot with that beer rather than looking down on the down-on-their luck underemployed guy who occasoinally imbibes; and they truly felt she would make a better president than he.

Now, you may disagree with those people, but really and truly, you, sitting right now listening to NPR, or planning out your shopping list at Whole Foods, in route from Starbucks to get a latte, what-have-you, YOUR vote is not more important than the votes of those people but equal. and further, YOU don't have a right from your privilege to 2nd guess the motives of those people your guy didn't try hard enough to reach or couldn't reach. Not really.

and what was the end result?

You are criticising Obama on 'remarks' taken out of context, and to which you are creating new and false context.

"Bitter remark": For one thing, Senl. Obama did not make the "bitter remark" in front of a "more or less well heeled group"; but made it in front of a rally of an extensive demographic. And, in context, he didn't say that lower or working classes were bitter because they were lower or middle class, but that in their bitterness at situations created by the present administration, were turning to those things in which they could trust, including their religious beliefs and their rights including those protected by the Second Amendment. He did not say that they were more bitter than other classes or groups, or that they were only (or only could) turn to religion and guns. Read or watch the speech, not just the sound byte.

"Lapel pin": Did you know that it is inappropriate and a breach of flag etiquette to wear the American flag except as part of an official uniform. Look it up; many flag web sites. But, beyond that: I also think that "lapel pin patriotism", is a straw man/red herring, meant to denegrate in the absence of any substantive criticism.

Michelle Obama's comments: Besides the fact that her off the cuff remark didn't spell America with double Ks; while somewhat embarrassing, does reflect a minority's exclamation of finally feeling proud to be included in what I often heard (and I'm sure you've heard) that "any boy can aspire to be President of the United States." Up until this campaign, no black person, and no woman, could actually say that (and notice that the phrase uses the term "boy") with any justifiable claim that such a circumstance pertained to them. We have come a long way, in race, religious, and gender tolerance and equal treatment, but the very fact that the questions of race, gender, religion, etc. keep coming up tells you that we have a way to go; and that Martin Luther Kings aspiration of a time when the quality of a persons character was more important than the color of his/her skin still has not arrived.

Rev. Wright: I don't know, but I have attended churches, synagogues, taken college courses from, and hobnobbed with preachers, rabbis, and professors who both expressed questionable positions with which I both agreed and disagreed; and they have remained, up to a point, my friends (on occasion), mentors, and confidants. I don't, and I don't expect anyone else, to surround themselves with only those who either agree with me, or are PC or acceptable to the majority of those around me. Oh, and yes, as regards Ayers: I have radical friends, either radical in the past and have become less radical, or remained consitent in their radicalism, of both the left and the right.

Hillary out spent and tried harder: I don't deny the Sen. Clinton was outspent by the Obama campaign; but I find no evidence that she tried harder than Sen. Obama to speak to the working class whites, or to Hispanics, or to any other group or class than did Sen. Obama. What she did do, effectively, was to characterise Sen. Obama, and (I believe) to appeal to pre-existing prejudices. Saying it more simple: She was more effective in labeling Sen. Obama as an eletist than he was in communicating his concerns. I don't think that it was a matter of substance; but, rather, a matter of her being a better connector to their prejudices.

Now, I do listen to NPR, but I don't conform to your other sterotypes. I don't think that my vote is more important than anyone elses, but neither did or does Sen. Obama. And, I'm not second guessing any one's motives; but I also do not believe that any one has a substantive reason to believe that Sen. Clinton had or has a more sincere connection to or concern for the working class (white, black, or other) than Sen. Obama, or that her programs or policies spoke more to their desires or needs. In a nutshell: Sen. Clinton spoke to prejudices, and created distinctions that did not and do not exist.

mrachmuth:

Great posts, seriously. I wish we could plaster the walls with them.

"Now, you may disagree with those people, but really and truly, you, sitting right now listening to NPR, or planning out your shopping list at Whole Foods, in route from Starbucks to get a latte, what-have-you, YOUR vote is not more important than the votes of those people but equal. and further, YOU don't have a right from your privilege to 2nd guess the motives of those people your guy didn't try hard enough to reach or couldn't reach. Not really."

If no one has the right to question whether racism affected Obama, then no one has the right to question how sexism affected Clinton. Moderator, please close this down this discussion immediately.

mrachmuth, really well put. Thanks for the post.

I am really sick of the way HRC supporters continue to trivialize and demonize Obama supporters for many things, including, education. It is a disgusting world if people are being ridiculed for achieving knowledge.

I'm a feminist, well-educated Obama supporter. I have an MFA but live at about the poverty line. I have permanent disabilities and do not drink any kind of coffee. I do not fit your stereotypes. I think Obama and Clinton received racist/sexist media-biased coverage but I have yet to come to any conclusions about how it affected the outcome.

I like Keith Olbermann and I don't think he was sexist. Nobody can slam Bush or McSame as well as he can.

this is how much I dislike Olberman. I seriously and without hyperbole believe that George W. Bush is the single worst, most inept and unskilled and even least U.S. constitution-concerning president in our history. Bar none. and I'm from Texas. and I LIKE Texas.

Yet, Olberman can make me feel defensive about Bush. Is Bush II INTENTIONALLY being terrible? 'worst person in the world' etc. would anyone bat an eye if he compared him to Hitler? Fair? journalistic? funny? childish? the last at least...