Clinton Apologizes to Black Voters for Racial Comments
WASHINGTON — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton did something Wednesday night that she almost never does. She apologized. And once she started, she didn’t seem able to stop.
The New York senator, who is in a tight race with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, struck several sorry notes at an evening forum sponsored by the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a group of more than 200 black community newspapers across the country.
Her biggest apology came in response to a question about comments by her husband, Bill Clinton, after the South Carolina primary, which Obama won handily. Bill Clinton said Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina when he ran for president in 1984 and 1988, a comment many viewed as belittling Obama’s success.
“I want to put that in context. You know I am sorry if anyone was offended. It was certainly not meant in any way to be offensive,” Hillary Clinton said. “We can be proud of both Jesse Jackson and Senator Obama.”
“Anyone who has followed my husband’s public life or my public life know very well where we have stood and what we have stood for and who we have stood with,” she said, acknowledging that whoever wins the nomination will have to heal the wounds of a bruising, historic contest.
“Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who have voted for me in very large numbers and I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee,” she said.
The Clintons long have enjoyed overwhelming support from black voters, but that has been eclipsed during the primaries and caucuses by enthusiasm and support for Obama, who has pulled huge margins among black voters. Arguments over the role of race and gender have flared up repeatedly throughout the contest between Obama, who would be the nation’s first black president, and Clinton, who would be its first female one.
Earlier in the day, Hillary Clinton supporter and fundraiser Geraldine Ferraro gave up her honorary position with Clinton’s campaign after she said in an interview last week that Obama would not have made it this far if he were white. Obama said Ferraro’s remarks were “ridiculous” and “wrong-headed.”
Of Ferraro’s comment, Hillary Clinton told her audience: “I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn’t speak for the campaign, she doesn’t speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee.”
As first lady and senator, Clinton rarely cedes an inch to her critics. On the issue of her vote to authorize the Iraq war, for instance, she steadfastly has refused to apologize, coming close by saying she regrets it, despite calls from many anti-war voters in the party to make a more explicit mea culpa.
Her third conciliatory statement of the evening was more in keeping with that fighting stance.
Asked about the government’s efforts in the Gulf States after Hurricane Katrina, Hillary Clinton turned an apology into a criticism of President Bush, who happened to be speaking at a Republican event in another room at the same hotel.
“I’ve said it publicly, and I say it privately: I apologize, and I am embarrassed that our government so mistreated our fellow citizens … It was a national disgrace,” she said.
Obama wants Hillary to repudiate Ferraro’s statement as racism, yet when will he repudiate his own preacher’s racist hatred? His preacher calls America AmeriKKKa, and yells God Damn America! He preaches lots of racist hate. When will Obama repudiate his remarks? His preacher has also been campaigning for him from the pulpit. Don’t hold your breath because you will turn blue waiting.
The Clinton campaign is very calculating. Everything done is for a reason. This was done to garner the “Archie Bunker” vote in PA. The same vote that elected PA’s racist govenor. I was born in raised in Wilkes-Barre, PA and am African American. Although I cherished my hometown and had plenty of friends of all ethnic backgrounds, I know from experience that it is one of the most racially divided states in the USA. I’ve traveled around the world via the Air Force and haven’t experienced half of bigoted behavior that I experienced in my home state. A few quick facts for anyone who is in denial about Mr. Obama’s mass appeal. African Americans comprise just 11.735% of the US population. Caucasians, Hispanic, Asians or others comprise the other 88.265%. How does him getting 60% of the AA vote nationally translate into a popular vote lead of over 300,000 (counting the results in Michigan, Florida) and an overall delegate lead of 145 and counting simply due to the AA vote? If this were true, then the USA would’ve already had an AA president. The more likely scenario is Clinton garnering the female and caucasian vote because she fits those demographics.
What on earth did she apologize for? The comments were not racist. I’m an black woman and a Clinton supporter and she just lost some ground with me for giving in. There was no reason to apologize. Ferraro’s comments were right on point, a little honesty anyone? Not to worry, we all didn’t drink the Obama Kool-Aid.
This whole thing is totally out of control. Color and gender do play a big part in this whether the people of America want to admit it or not.
I’m sick to death of this politically correct atmosphere where people don’t have a right to say what is really on their minds because it may not sit well with this group or another.
Go into a black community and ask them if they are voting for Obama and if they say yes, ask them why. So far the first and foremost comment I’ve received is “because he is one of us.” Now that is okay, if that is how they choose their candidate. I’ve asked ladies groups the same thing, and invaribly I receive answers such as “It’s time a woman straighten out this country, because the men have ruined it long enough!” Nothing wrong with that either.
All I am saying is to ignore the fact Obama has black ancestry and Clinton (Mrs.) is female is just being plain stupid. Sometimes you can’t ignore the obvious, nor should you.
So why the big fuss if someone expresses their own personal opinion? Are we moving this country to a position where individual thought and original opinions will put you in jail? God forbid!
Everyone just needs to lighten up on what really doesn’t matter and start asking the questions “Who has more experience?” “Who will represent ALL the people?” and “Who can I trust to tell me the full/whole truth?” To me this is the issue, not whether one is black or the other is female. We need to look at the real issues here, and quit wasting time and space clouding the real issues with this Hollywood mentality!
Thank you.
It is really dishearting to continually see President Bush receiving the blame for Katrina victims in New Orleans. Strangely enough Katrina mainly hit Mississippi and they did not have the problems that Louisiana had. Louisiana was mostly damaged by the breaking of the levee, not the hurricane. In addition, if Louisiana’s local and state government had reacted as quickly and efficiently as Mississippi’s they would have never had the problems they encountered. One would think from the media that ONLY New Orleans had been hit by the hurricane. Visit the Mississippi Gulf Coast - I just did and it is still recovering without blame on anything but the hurricane!!!
Oh come on. Ferraro just pointed out the facts, and you call her a racist. Evertime a with light skin person says anything against a black African American it they are classified as a racist. What about you African Americans when tell jokes about a light skin person and it is the truth, yet you do not hear any up roar. Hallary needs to stand her ground apologizing only proves weakness.. To you the open mineded Afircan Americans please answer me this question, if Hllary was a black strong lady like most of African American ladies are, who is more qualified. Think about it, the truth hurts. To the person who talks about cranking of whips, you are still living past, why are you so insecure? You need to come out and see what the young proud Afican American brothers and sisters have accomplishedl. Don’t blame the white man for you failed goals, you must determine your own destiny. I am a proud brown skin person, and only I determinated my future and if I fail, I am the only one to blame. If you think I am a racist, I am married with a proud black lady. . I leave you with this question, “What has Obama have done for you lately”.
Question to yall who think Ferraro comments were not racist:
Do you truly believe I am a successful is b/c I am a black woman?
The fact I spent 30k on undergrad; another 30k on my mba; work 10-12 hrs a week (sun-sat); promoted 3x in one yr b/c I don’t just do what I am suppose to do at work, I go way beyond my what is expected of me. Are you saying this all came to me b/c I am a black woman. Also my undergrad gpa was 3.87 and MBA was 3.91 and I got all A’s b/c I was black? If that is the case I should have just came out of my mothers womb and done nothing! Why the heck am I working so hard. Those who have sat on their back sides (and done nothing) since they were born are living in POVERTY pure POVERTY! Including white people.
I truly want to understand yall. Ferraro’s comments were racist clearly. I am not successful b/c I am a black woman. I am successful b/c I work hard, and I am educated. Just like Obama!!!
Comment by de vhendt
March 13th, 2008 at 1:02 pm ….ummm, thanks for your reported scrutiny of the American Federal election process this year…your choice of candidate is noted.
However, by your own admission…you’re not a U.S. national, you are a foreigner asking Americans to choose who you believe should lead this country. Your audicity is quite obvious and American domestic concerns shouldn’t be your concerns.
By your admission that you’re African-British..I suggest you clean your own house (which is in dire need of cleaning) before you demand others clean theirs. Obama is an empty suit, all platitudes and with a questionable ideology once his associates are accounted for. His ecomonic plan would send this country into the poorhouse and his incopetence in foreign affairs and natiional security is bewildering. Again…your choice is noted, thank you.
Hillary’s embarassment about our governments mistreating our fellow citizens after the Gulf hurricanes is the disgrace.
It is not the National governments job to watch every Tom, Dick & Mary state. They are suppose to watch over interstate events. and enforce the laws for interstate business. The National government will also help when asked, and should not be held accountable for lack of a states planning.
The local and state governments had amble opportunity to help there citizens prior to these events occurring. Most of these states areas are back up and functional so this is old news so get over it.
The Problem With the Popular Vote:
People have been talking about the popular vote as a possible trump card for Clinton. As in, Yes, Obama is going to win the pledged delegates. But what if Clinton wins the popular vote? The implication is that a popular vote win by Clinton could convince superdelegates, who will decide the election, to swing toward her instead of Obama.
Here’s the problem with that: The popular vote isn’t as pure a number as people think. For all the biases of the Democrats’ pledged-delegate selection system—proportional allocation, caucus math, open vs. closed voting—the popular vote has its own inadequacies. Namely, it understates Obama’s success in caucus states.
Caucuses have relatively low turnout compared with primaries. “To me, the caucuses don’t provide the broad base of participation that I have fought for my entire life,” Clinton said even after winning Nevada. That’s why Obama’s strength in caucuses—he’s won all but two of the 15 caucus states so far—irks Clinton so much. They privilege energetic young people with free time, also known as Obama’s base.
But when you’re talking about the popular vote, the relatively low caucus turnout turns into an advantage for Clinton. Obama won Kansas, for example, with 74 percent of the vote. But only 37,000 of the state’s 401,000 registered Democrats—about 9 percent—turned out to caucus. Primary turnout, on the other hand, has been more than 30 percent in many states this year (although each state’s registration system is different, making the exact numbers difficult to measure). So had Kansas held a primary instead of a caucus, the state would have contributed more toward Obama’s popular vote tally. (For relative turnout in the 2004 caucuses and primaries, see here.)
The Clinton counterargument would be, Well, if Kansas had held a primary, Obama wouldn’t have won by as much, if at all. But that doesn’t change the fact that the popular vote does not fully reflect the results of the system agreed to by the party. You could conceivably calculate an alternative “popular vote” that extrapolates caucus results to imagine what the total tally would have been, had more people showed up to caucus. But that comes with its own dangers, since you don’t actually know how those people would have voted.
Still, the main point stands: The popular vote is tainted. If Florida and Michigan revote, there’s a chance Clinton would narrow the lead in the popular vote, and possibly even take it. (She still probably can’t catch up delegatewise.) In which case, keep in mind that even the popular vote has its flaws.
Published Wednesday, March 12, 2008 5:20 PM by Christopher Beam