Blumenthal: Hillary the working class hero

Rachael Jolley

Published 27 May 2008

Former adviser to Bill Clinton, Sidney Blumenthal is now on Hillary's campaign team. Here he tells Rachael Jolley how Clinton not Obama connects with America's working class

Let's face it. Hillary Clinton is scarcely an obvious working class hero. But over the past few months she has forged a bond with blue collar and middle class voters which Barack Obama cannot even begin to emulate - that's according to ex-West Wing insider Sidney Blumenthal.

In an interview with newstatesman.com, the man who stood by President Bill Clinton through thick and thin, warned that the Democratic candidate who fails to win the hearts of the American working and middle classes will fail to enter the White House.

Now on Hillary’s campaign team, Blumenthal says it is her struggle in the primaries and her fighting spirit have established an unexpected special bond between her and Middle America.

When the race began, she may have been seen as a more elitist figure, but her campaign has transformed into a fight on working and middle class issues.

“She has a tangible connection with them that she didn't have before. She has very definite connections with these voters.”

Blumenthal, who has written extensively about the consequences of a Republican-dominated America and been an outspoken critic of Bush the younger, believes that the Democrats’ key failure in the latter part of the 20th century was an inability to reach and represent working people: “This is a central factor for the regeneration of the Democratic party,” adding they had come to be seen as "elitist".

The Democrats were further stigmatised, particularly through the Reagan years, as less patriotic than the Republicans, and less competent with the economy - similar to the picture the Tories painted of the UK Labour Party in the 1970s and 1980s. "The Clinton period was an effort to deal with these inherited problems and to reconstruct the centre left,” says Blumenthal.

The strength of Blumenthal’s conviction that Hillary should be the next Democratic candidate matches the strength — and waspishness — of his opinion that Barack Obama should not. For example, he dismisses Obama’s foreign experience as “I think he stopped in Britain once for a day”.

“Obama's problem is, as a candidate he hasn't really extended his support beyond his base as a state senator.” These supporters hail from liberal academia, the well-off young and African Americans, believes Blumenthal, who is not afraid to point the finger at Obama's attitude to working class as “insulting”, plainly referring to comments during the Pennsylvania primary.

“His supporters may be fervent but they leave the centre of the party cold,” says Blumenthal.

Blumenthal says declaring Obama has won is also “premature” and “if he had already won then he wouldn't need to make the claim”.

Blumenthal echoes Clinton's unwillingness to quit the race, pointing to her wins in seven of eight big states and the votes of the “popular majority”.

That's not to say Clinton and her supporters are unaware of just how big a rift there is between the two wings of the Democratic party, and what an effort it will entail to bridge this gap when, finally, a single candidate rises, battle-scarred, from the ashes of the campaign.

“There's no consensus in this party. This is a unique situation” admits Blumenthal, and in case anyone thought that implied Clinton giving in and retiring hurt, he swiftly points out that the idea “that the consensus will magically surround Barack Obama is a fallacy”. But surely this is a difficulty faced by both candidates, whoever should takes the nomination? “Politically the Democratic Party does have a problem,” he admits.

Curiously, Blumenthal seems more riled about Obama than Republican candidate John McCain, “a genuine war hero”.

McCain's individualism and his unwillingness to toe the party line “resonates deeply in the country”, says Blumenthal.

“Democrats will have to deal with him eventually, but first they have to deal with themselves,” says Blumenthal believes, unlike many commentators, that Democratic indecision has not given McCain a head start, because he “can't focus on who his opponent is”. Others argue he is being given plenty of time to decide on his tactics while the eye of the media is trained on the Democratic storm.

“Patriotism and national security are still associated in the public mind with the Republicans more than the Democrats. This is more of a problem for Obama (than for Hillary).”

Blumenthal worked with Tony Blair on the Third Way concept but during our interview didn't want to be drawn on the tasks that Gordon Brown currently faces. However, he did add that following a charismatic leader into office was always a challenge.

Nor has US foreign policy helped the occupants of Downing Street over the past eight years.

“There was a unique relationship between Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, I think that relationship was abused under George Bush. Bush used the UK to justify his policies and then dismissed the analysis, judgements and policy suggestions that came from the British government on everything from how to organise an international coalition and climate change to the Middle East, to how to deal with Iraq after the war.”

Blumenthal is just as happy to take aim at the media as well as the political elite. “Each time I think the US media has reached the bottom, it finds a new cellar.” He argues journalists “were indispensable as Bush's instruments of disinformation”, and have now turned their fire on Hillary Clinton - “many of them are crudely misogynistic” and have “brazenly taken sides, in this case for Obama”.

Of course, Blumenthal, too, has taken sides. And in the dying days of a tightly fought war of words, this master of US political language is a good man to have as your lieutenant. Whether his championship will make a difference to Hillary Clinton is less clear.

The Strange Death of Republican America; Chronicles of a Collapsing Party, £14.99, by Sidney Blumenthal, is published on 1 June.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

8 comments from readers

Monique from NC
27 May 2008 at 19:05

Sidney, we are counting on you!

bcrha2004
27 May 2008 at 19:16

Blumenthal's diagnosis: 'delusional disorder by proxy'

rozz62
27 May 2008 at 19:20

http://www.dontvoteobama.net

ABSOLUTE MUST READ BEFORE YOU VOTE FOR OBAMA

http://www.dontvoteobama.net

BOYCOTT CNN & MSNBC for manipulating the Presidential election with the biased pushing of obama before researching.

May 27, 2008

Tracking Polls (General)

Gallup: McCain 47, Obama 45

Gallup: Clinton 49, McCain 44

Rasmussen: McCain 45, Obama 45

Rasmussen: Clinton 47, McCain 45

http://www.dontvoteobama.net

Hillary Clinton's plummets Obama in West Virginia and KY raises serious doubts over Barack Obama's ability. SENATOR CLINTON WINS THE STATES NEEDED TO TAKE WHITE HOUSE, OBAMA DOES NOT

FACT: NO Democrat has won the White House since 1916 without winning West Virginia, Obama lost West Virginia by more than 40 points, an enormous fall, voters who went against Obama — white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees who live everywhere in the country, where Obama would need to win in a general election. In anticipation of the West Virginia primary, Obama supporters were hurling insults at farmers and truck drivers. Now we hear pained remarks from the Obama camp that many white men won't vote for any black. Oh really? No one was complaining during the early races in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin, when most of the white male participants backed Obama. That was before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright ugliness became public. Obama's inability to persuade working-class white voters to back him points to serious problem for him in the presidential election. A large percentage of voters who back Mrs Clinton said they would not vote for Obama. Disrespecting the nearly 22 million who have supported Clinton is politically unwise, Obama camp turning them into "the enemy" is insane.

Lilia
27 May 2008 at 20:33

I am sickened by the manipulation of the media. Hillary is earning the right to win the nomination. If she somehow is not selected, I think she should run as an independent. I pre-registered to be a voter when I was 17 because I wanted my vote to count and my voice to be heard. I have been a Democrat for 34 years. I plan on dropping the Democratic party because I feel it no longer operates on the ideals I think to be important. My FL vote didn't seem to matter in the past two elections, and now the DNC doesn't want to recognize my vote for reasons that were out of my control. Obama is not the messiah that he has been made out to be. I am not racist. The amount of pigment in a person's skin makes no difference to me. I refuse to vote for this particular candidate because he does not represent my voice.

In addition to not favoring Obama, I have been extremely put off by the tactics of his supporters. He is not the candidate to pull everyone together, he and his supporters have managed to divide the party. I wonder how much money he has paid out to the Super Delegates for their votes? I thought the Super Delegates role was to wait to cast their votes. Why have they decided this year to be power brokers to sway the elections so early in the race?

Hillary is clearly the stronger candidate to pull the country out of the mess that Bush and Chaney have made of it, and to beat McCain in the GE. As a Democrat, I have been disenfranchised and disappointed. I am disgusted with the DNC. Hillary needs to take it all the way to the convention, if necessary.

Ramkumar
27 May 2008 at 21:01

This seer was arrested for driving under influence just five months back.

Colonel Blimp
28 May 2008 at 10:10

The Queen is my working class hero. God save her Royal Chavness!

jchbrock
28 May 2008 at 19:27

Your article does not mention caucuses and how they have skewed the delegate count towards Obama. The popular vote is important, especially in this race. Our press is silent on the issue of caucuses, but caucuses have determined the lead in the pledged delegate count for Obama and what has happened since then.

Caucuses disenfranchise Hillary's main voter base: older voters, working people who cannot take off from work to participate in lengthy caucus processes, and the many women who are pressured by the fact that their vote is public in a caucus. Primaries use secret ballots and absentee ballots for a reason. Obama's main voter base consists of the young, for example, college students, and the wealthy that can afford to take time off to participate in the lengthy caucus process.

To compare primary results to caucus results, look at the Map Room on the site election.msn.com, specifically the states of Washington and Texas. The outcome of the caucuses is skewed towards Obama. Now consider that Obama won the caucus states Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming. Hillary won Nevada because the caucuses were held in the workplace in the cities, and people were given time off to vote. Obama won th e primary state Utah but the result was singular because Romney was on the ballot and won the vast majority of votes. Many delegates were awarded on the basis of low voting numbers in these states, making the skew towards Obama even more pronounced.

The Obama supporters that I have presented this argument to reply that Obama won the caucuses because of superior organization and that in itself is a reason that he should have the delegates, but I contend that it is not a matter of organization. I fell last year and broke my T5 vertebrae quite badly. I would not have been able to vote in the caucus in Texas because of the long lines and the cold night. Fortunately, I live in the great state of California and we have a primary, that Hillary won by 10%. And, yes, I am an older woman, part of Hillary's voter base.

I think everyone should start investigating caucuses, exactly how they are run in each caucus state. For example, is the st ate of Washington trying to figure out what went wrong with their caucuses? At the Map Room on the site election.msn.com, compare their caucus result to their primary result. The caucus came first: Obama 68% and Hillary 31%. The primary was next: Obama 51% and Hillary 46%. Why would anyone bother to vote in the primary if they knew that their vote would not count towards winning delegates for their candidate? Voter confusion?

Everyone agrees that this nomination race has been a demographic race, notably David Brooks. In the past, the race between two (or more) white men did not split the demographics in a noticeable way. This year is different! The FairVote organization opposes caucuses for good reasons. It is perfectly legitimate to consider the will of the people in a democracy, and caucus results do not represent the will of the people.

outsider
21 August 2008 at 20:39

Before you swoon over Hillary, check out 'Hildabeast' on the web. And ain't it a shame, that all MSM plays the 'tweedle dee - tweedle dum' two-party game; like 'New Labour' and 'Con(by name, and by nature)servatives, the same bankers, industrialists and secret societies control the policies.

Now, why not cover a decent candidate, Cynthia McKinney? Boy, would she shake the Establishment to their hell-based roots! She may not have a bat in hell's chance of winning, given no money and a blanket media blackout.

Check out her policies, NS, and be chastened. Talk about chalk and cheese; if there was an all-party public debate of all candidates, of maybe four hours duaration or more, with the discussions continueing for following days till all the points the candidates wanted to make were made and answered by the other candidates, she would not wipe the floor with the whole shower, only because they would have fled with their tails between their legs in confusion.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker