Clinton, working-class whites, and ‘screw ’em’

The Huffington Post caused quite a stir two weeks ago with the now-infamous report about Barack Obama’s remarks about “bitter” working-class families in small towns. Today, the Huffington Post has a follow-up report about Hillary Clinton.

During the past week, Sen. Hillary Clinton has presented herself as a working class populist, the politician in touch with small town sentiments, compared to the elitism of her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama.

But a telling anecdote from her husband’s administration shows Hillary Clinton’s attitudes about the “lunch-bucket Democrats” are not exactly pristine.

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

“Screw ’em,” she told her husband. “You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”

Sam Stein’s HuffPost item notes that the anecdote was documented in Benjamin Barber’s book, “The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House,” and was confirmed by Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota’s Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the same retreat.

“[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality,” Boyte said. “The comment before that was that ‘the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren’t on our side,’ and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them.”

So, is this the next big example of “molehill politics“? It’s hard to predict, but I kind of doubt it.

First, there’s no audio or video. Barber and Boyte say they heard the same comment, but it’s tough to base a media flare-up on their recollections.

Second, if Clinton made the comments, she did so more than 13 years ago. Obama’s comments came two weeks ago, in the midst of the race, during a campaign fundraiser.

Third, I don’t imagine the Obama campaign would pursue this, in large part because it would keep his controversial comments in the news, as observers compared the two.

And for what it’s worth, I get the sense Clinton’s attitudes have changed over the last 13 years. She reportedly said “screw ’em” in relation to those working-class voters she perceived as having shifted to the GOP, but since then, she’s demonstrated far more willingness to reach out to political opponents on the Republican side of the aisle.

Still, the last HuffPost item led to quite an uproar, and we’ll see if this sparks similar interest. I’d be surprised if it did, but after watching this campaign for a while, I’ve been surprised before.

Stein concluded, “The Clinton campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.”

We’ll see what happens.

Well, if Obama being in the same room with that Weather Underground fellow in 1995 gets as much coverage as it has, this certainly deserves a mention. That said, I don’t expect much of this because Obama’s not going to jump into the gutter with Hillary and start pushing the story.

  • The problem is not so much this story itself, but Hillary’s credibility. I know nothing about Barber and Boyte. But even if Bartles and Jaymes said it, I would tend to believe it. After all, it would dovetail nicely with her “Right Wing Conspiracy” statements on the Today Show and her cozying up to Murdoch, Limbaugh and Scaife.

  • Yes, time and context mean nothing. And HuffPo found just the right picture to illustrate the story too. Of course, we all know that Hillary doesn’t care about any people, working class or not, and has done nothing whatsoever in her lifetime to support concerns of the working class. It’s all about chance discussions in hallways anyway, not stated policies, votes and actions. Tomorrow we’ll hear about something she said to someone on a bus, 20 years ago.

    What do you all think about Obama criticizing Carter for talking with Hamas, after himself saying that he plans to talk with our enemies when president? Hypocritical?

  • Sigh!

    Nah, some Obama supporter is going to point out that in the 90’s it was the Clinton’s POLICY not to do anything for rural and small town America, and thus the basis of the Senator’s comments are correct.

    Of course, we don’t really know if Bill Clinton took his wife’s suggestion. Worthy of analysis, that.

  • She must have said it while she was dodging sniper fire at Camp David. Yup, that must have been it.

    /snark

  • The key phrase is “working class white southerners”. Southerner former Dems. This is a constituency that many have said is not worth going after.

    Yeah this is molehill stuff. At worst it’s a Hill mole.

  • “Screw ‘em, you don’t owe the Clintons a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”

    Doesn’t matter if it is on tape or not. The Clintons high negatives are there for a reason. They don’t pass the smell test for at least 60% of the population.

    I can’t even begin to imagine what the country would devolve into with Hillary as president. “Hell on earth,” doesn’t come even close to describing the acrimony and bitterness that would convulse the nation. It would be like one long vomit festival…without surcease, times ten.

  • Mary said:
    What do you all think about Obama criticizing Carter for talking with Hamas, after himself saying that he plans to talk with our enemies when president? Hypocritical?

    Actually IFP has a point there. I don’t know if it’s hypocritical, but he’s kowtowing to the Jews like McCain is to the fundies. Disappointing.

  • Mary, this point might be a little too nuanced for you to understand, but there’s a difference between Iran, a COUNTRY, and Hamas, a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. Obama certainly knows the difference. That’s why he has different policies for each.

  • What Lance said. The Clintons said “screw em” in a bunch of other ways, mostly by pushing NAFTA. The fact that her main advisor was still pushing the same old “free trade” shit until she was called on it, and the fact that he is still her confidant says “screw em” louder than Hillary ever could.

  • Shep Smith at Fox News has already reported on this today. If Hillary is going to play holier than thou on this issue with Obama, then she had this coming to her.

  • New journalism rule should be: The more damning the article the nicer the picture should be. The ugly picture thing is too Drudgian.

  • CB said:
    The Huffington Post caused quite a stir two weeks ago……

    I think it only feels like two weeks ago. Didn’t this break less than a week ago? The remarks were originally made a week and a half ago, I think.

  • CHEEZBURGER #9

    Hamas is the duly elected ruling party of Palestine (although all they have left is Gaza.) And Carter makes Obama’s earlier point that talking to someone is not validating them.

  • What do you all think about Obama criticizing Carter for talking with Hamas, after himself saying that he plans to talk with our enemies when president? Hypocritical?

    Seriously, if you see no difference between meeting with the government of Iran and meeting with Hezbollah, then I don’t think there is much room for discussion.

    Smarter Hillbots, please.

  • Hamas is the duly elected ruling party of Palestine (although all they have left is Gaza.)

    True, but that part in the parenthetical is kind of relevant.

    Because of the rift in the Palestinian government between Abbas’ Fatah party and the ruling Hamas party, there is essentially no functional government there.

    You cannot really compare the government run by Hamas (what parts of it they are still responsible for) to other ‘unfriendly’ regimes around the world.

  • Ouch an angry woman who is resentful that the south abandon the democrats.
    Tar and feather her.
    That’s not elitist, it’s just anger.
    But I have concluded we all are elitists. You know, high info voters, the creative class. We know that those small town folk are ignorant and cling to guns and religion and such out of frustration. They need us to lead them.

  • “They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”

    I truly think that is the more damning concept. Hillary Clinton conceives of her service to the country in only one narrow way: as a zero-sum political transaction. It apparently has never occurred to her that the responsibility of the President of the United States must be to improve and protect the welfare of ALL Americans, regardless of party or voting history.

  • Dear lord … once again the primary has come down to old, irrelevant or not really important things someone once said.

    Her policies seem to show that she does actually care about working folks (white or otherwise), such as what is probably the best health care option proposed by the candidates (not a perfect plan, but better). And, considering what the Clintons were going through at the time, I don’t blame her for saying it. In fact, I find it pretty understandable.

    And I’m an Obama supporter, so it’s not like I’ve cut Clinton much slack in the past. I just think this rally is much ado about nothing.

    **shrugs shoulders**

  • John S. said:
    Seriously, if you see no difference between meeting with the government of Iran and meeting with Hezbollah, then I don’t think there is much room for discussion.

    If one of you is talking about Hamas and the other is talking about Hezbollah then you’re right, discussion is difficult. 🙂

  • along is 100% right. You couldn’t get any further away from ‘Ask not what your country can do for you,’ than ‘They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.’

    For Hillary and Bill, it is all about what you can do for the Clintons.

  • “Screw ‘em, you don’t owe the Clintons a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.”

    Don’t poo-pooh this away to quickly. After all, this is the same attitude she has for the States that went to Barack Obama.

  • If one of you is talking about Hamas and the other is talking about Hezbollah then you’re right, discussion is difficult.

    Ah, heck, they all look the same and speak those funny languages. What’s the difference?

  • Of course, Hillary was never very comfortable in the ‘Deep South’, working-class traditions in Arkansas in her nearly two decades there as Bill’s martial partner. She always seemed on the other side in the cultural wars..Here is another telling anecdote from the New York senator’s former business partner, Susan McDougal, who described a not untypical Hillary exchange in 1996 for “Blood Sport” author James Stewart.

    As McDougal looked on during a political reception, an Arkansas woman approached Mrs. Clinton with the gift of a pair of “razorback earrings” in the shape of hogs. She asked Hillary to put them on, but the then-Arkansas first lady icily demurred.

    After the gift giver moved away, Clinton blurted out to McDougal, “See, this is the kind of s–t I have to put up with here.”

  • Strange that the kind of people she was saying “screw ’em” about are basically her voter coalition now.

    But hey, that was then and this is now. Then doesn’t matter (except for the experience part). And now is different (at least on the surface).

    I can’t hold it against her, though, round about 1994 i was saying the same thing about the Clintons.

  • Huff Post is not any different than this site its all Obama all the time. I’m sure if there is a tape of it it will come out if not no story here keep moving along your latte line so you aren’t late for some peace rally.

    P.S. Don’t be late for your next class.

  • If one of you is talking about Hamas and the other is talking about Hezbollah then you’re right, discussion is difficult.

    Way to go for the cheap points.

    Kindly substitute ‘Hamas’ for ‘Hezbollah’ and see if it breaks the point I was trying to make? It doesn’t? You mean it still makes sense?!

    I thought so.

    And yes, I realize that they are not the same organization, but when referring to Iran and terrorist groups, somehow Hezbollah came to mind.

  • I truly think that is the more damning concept. Hillary Clinton conceives of her service to the country in only one narrow way: as a zero-sum political transaction.

    Really, voters are a bunch of Judases, when you think about it. With everything the Clintons have done for us, how can the country reject them like this?

  • John S. said:
    And yes, I realize that they are not the same organization, but when referring to Iran and terrorist groups, somehow Hezbollah came to mind.

    It’s okay. McCain has the same problem.

    John S. said:
    Seriously, if you see no difference between meeting with the government of Iran and meeting with Hezbollah, [Hamas} then I don’t think there is much room for discussion.

    The question is, do you see the similarity. Obama can learn a lot from Carter.

  • She was probably complaining about the sniper rifle wileding ducks they sent agsint her

  • Speaking of elitism-would it be called elitist the remark Hillary made years ago while First Lady of Arkansas-A comment putting down women,in general,—“What do you expect me to do-stay home and bake cookies? Be a good little housewife and stand by my man?”-_____________________________________________________________________I’ve heard no one mention these arrogant remarks from years ago!

  • “Screw ‘em,” she told her husband.

    And he meekly obeyed…He should have used that as his defense, instead of “I didn’t have sex with that woman”; he really should have taken Adam’s defense.

  • #32 Those remarks are making the rounds various places on the net – can’t remember which sites. But the video I posted earlier today contains them. See jedreport.com. As a working mom/woman, I don’t have a problem with the gist of her comments, just the condescending way she said them.

    #33 LOL

  • There will be forty years of remarks by the Clintons that will have 1000 Watt halogen bulbs shined on them if / when Hillary becomes the nominee. The notion they’ve been “vetted” is deeply questionable. She’s already employing tactics against her Party opponent that will be even more easily used against her in the general election.

    Those that think she’s been “vetted” are in for a very rude shock.

  • The “Truth of Power” book is searchable at Amazon, and this Huffington Post attack is phony and contrived. The passage describes a “Hillary versus the DLC” strategy session in which Hillary is defending conventional Dem constituencies – women, children, minorities, and the poor – against the likely impact of the Gingrich revolution. Some flavor:

    Hillary had jumped in with her own response to Panetta, speaking with warrior forcefulness on behalf of traditional democratic politics – a habit she had to unlearn later, when she entered politics in her own right. Hillary seemed to be playing conscience to a President who was all politics… her role struck me as vital. She referred feelingly to the oligopolies and monopolies, the special interests trying to manipulate the average American into thinking the represented the common good, manipulating him to obstruct the progressive agenda. Her hard, angry rhetoric resonated with the ancient ardor of class war. She was with Starr and Skocpol [Earlier we are told that Starr wanted the Democrats to stand up for women, children, minorities, and the poor who would be victimized by the Gingrich revolution]. She was not persuaded that the soft, if well-meaning, language of civil society could contend with the hard power of well entrenched socio-economic groups. If working white men and white women in the South no longer wanted to support the president, if ethnics were continuing to jump the Democrats ship then – she looked her husband in the eye – “screw ’em. You don’t owe them a thing Bill, They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them.” This was liberalism at its fighting best. The point was not to heal in the name of soft consensus but to attack in the name of hard justice.

    Lots of Dems around who disagree with that? Huffington Post – mistrust but verify.

    BTW, I don’t get the meaning of “if ethnics were continuing to jump the Democrats ship” in 1995. What ethnics?

  • John S @28:

    The confusion is understandable. With regard to Israel, on one hand Hamas and Fatah both have a history of trying to wipe out the Israeli Jews and firing rockets into Israel. On the other hand, Lebanese Hezbollah has a history of…*surprise!* trying to wipe out the Israeli Jews and firing rockets into Israel. The real difference there is that Hezbollah managed to sink an Israeli ship back in August 2006 with a Chinese ASCM they got from Iran and Hamas is still trying to keep people alive in Gaza. That, and Hezbollah has been keeping the impoverished in Lebanon alive and supplied with food and medicine.

    As to Hamas and Fatah, Ralph Peters wrote a scathing piece about them back in June 2007. He relates it to the Iraq war, but his characterization of the rival Thugs For Allah and the Destruction of Israel was refreshingly on point. See it here:

    http://www.nypost.com/seven/06142007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/in_gazas_shadow_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm?page=0

  • (sorry 3rd times you know what)

    This story is not just about her damning statements, but about how very ironic they are in light of her newfound conversion to champion of small-town life.

    Between it and similar sentiments she shared in White House policy meetings, any tiny possibility of Mrs. Clinton showing the superdelegates that she has a better shot in the general election is completely lost.

    How far will she take this & how much work will she do for the Republican party?

  • #36- Regarding “vetting”,I couldn’t agree with you more. Especially relating to the Weather Underground-I thought Obama’s comeback about Bill PARDONING a couple of the members was choice- then- CUT TO COMMERCIAL!! I suppose some of the bloggers here are too young to remember Whitewater,the Rose law firm docs,Vince Foster, Mena Arkansas airport scandal,Lincoln bedroom rentals-oh,lest I drone on-I agree, you ain’t seen (or heard) nothing yet.

  • “move along the latte line…”

    How exactly did liberals get the reputation of being elitist? How many rich Republicans are out there, including McCain, who have 8 houses, where suits that cost thousands of dollars, fly in their own jets, have limos with drivers, etc.? They never drink lattes???? Somehow they manage to pull off the photo-op with BBQ aprons on and are thought of as someone you most want to drink a beer with. WTF???

  • Cindy McCain’s plagerizing of recipes that have mysteriously become her “family” recipes is another elitist case in point. She never has to cook! Why would she have recipes of her own? But of course, we’re talking about building an image here… GW never owned the Crawford ranch before he ran for office, he never really lived there and he isn’t going to retire there. He’s moving to Dallas. It was just a prop!

  • If this story had no legs, Clinton campaign would not be out to quash it!

    “”Don Baer, Bruce Reed not only don’t remember the comment being made, but don’t remember the meeting where this allegedly took place reflecting the tone or tenor that was described,” he said, naming two Clinton staff policy advisers. “Some people are having a recollection that was contradicted by other people who were there,” he said.”

    If Clinton aides Phil singer is quoting “two Clinton loyalists that do not remember the MEETING where this took place”, how are they so emphatic that Hillary
    DID NOT speak those words?

    Are the two things not contradictory?

    As she herself says, more scrutiny is expected if you are running for the highest office.

  • Even as an Obama supporter, I do have a problem with attacking a twelve-year-old statement. I don’t think that the Obama camp should give this much attention and it doesn’t appear they have so far. However, this “screw ’em” remark is consistent with Clinton’s attitude of giving the middle finger to anyone that doesn’t pander to her and any state that she doesn’t win. It’s horrible for a Presidential hopeful to have such an outlook.

  • Comments are closed.