The Myth of Clinton's "Blue Collar Base"
Despite what all the media pundits have been saying about her "base", Hillary Clinton is not the candidate of "blue collar" Democrats. Last night's vote in Wisconsin is proof that the backbone of the Democratic party has woken up to this fact. It's times like these when I wish I was back home in the Ohio Valley to continue to drive that point home with contests in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia to follow.
Barack Obama is by far the more appealing candidate for blue collar voters once they have a chance to get to know him as well as they've gotten to know Hillary Clinton. His life story, the sources of each candidate's campaign donations and the candidate's positions on the issues demonstrate this clearly.
If you've ever driven along the coast of Lake Michigan in northwestern Indiana on into the south side of Chicago, perhaps you would be struck, as I was by how much it resembles the Ohio Valley where I grew up. The steel plants that have closed down and the casinos that have replaced them in many cases are highly reminiscent of the familiar scenes driving up either side of the Ohio River. Barack Obama made the choice to go to these kinds of places and fight for those who had lost their jobs and were seeking hope for a better tomorrow. He didn't have to. He graduated from a prestigious law school and could have made a lot more money and lived a much more comfortable life as a corporate attorney. He did not. He worked as a community organizer in a faith-based organization much like Wheeling's own Hopeful City. This is the kind of man we will be getting as president with Barack Obama.
But there is one truth in politics that holds true regardless of a candidate's biography--if you want to know who they stand with and for then you need to follow the money. A recent report by the New York Times showed what Obama's been claiming all along is true--90% of his campaign's donors have contributed LESS than $100. I know because I'm one of them. More than 900,000 ordinary Americans have donated to his campaign so far. On the other hand, the bulk of Senator Clinton's campaign funds come from wealthy donors who write checks for the maximum amount of more than $2000. Know any blue collar Americans who have that kind of money to donate to a campaign? On top of that, she has also taken lobbyist and PAC contributions, tying her to the same old politics as usual Washington machine. Barack Obama has not. Every politician owes his or her office to someone. Obama will owe his to a wide cross-section of ordinary Americans.
Lastly, you might still be thinking that Hillary Clinton has stood with working class Americans on the issues that matter to them. After all, she's making speeches (which she says don't matter) all around Ohio right now about her "four point plan" to reassess NAFTA's impact on working Americans. Has anyone forgotten that it was she and her husband who brought NAFTA to us in the first place? I suppose she can return to her refrain of "if I'd only known then what I know now" to explain her vote on this as well as her vote on the war AND on her failure to bring comprehensive health care reform in the past, but are we really going to buy it? I'll agree, she has a lot more experience than Barack Obama does at being wrong on critical issues. Barack Obama will get things right the first time.
So why did she do so well in the early contests with those "blue collar" voters? The obvious answer is simple--name recognition. When you're working a 40-hour week and coming home to a stack of bills and kids who will be hoping to leave for college soon, you don't have time to follow politics and learn about someone like Barack Obama who is, admittedly, fairly new to the political scene. But as voters have gotten to know him, Obama has made gains everywhere he's campaigned. Expect that trend to continue.
Barack Obama is by far the more appealing candidate for blue collar voters once they have a chance to get to know him as well as they've gotten to know Hillary Clinton. His life story, the sources of each candidate's campaign donations and the candidate's positions on the issues demonstrate this clearly.
If you've ever driven along the coast of Lake Michigan in northwestern Indiana on into the south side of Chicago, perhaps you would be struck, as I was by how much it resembles the Ohio Valley where I grew up. The steel plants that have closed down and the casinos that have replaced them in many cases are highly reminiscent of the familiar scenes driving up either side of the Ohio River. Barack Obama made the choice to go to these kinds of places and fight for those who had lost their jobs and were seeking hope for a better tomorrow. He didn't have to. He graduated from a prestigious law school and could have made a lot more money and lived a much more comfortable life as a corporate attorney. He did not. He worked as a community organizer in a faith-based organization much like Wheeling's own Hopeful City. This is the kind of man we will be getting as president with Barack Obama.
But there is one truth in politics that holds true regardless of a candidate's biography--if you want to know who they stand with and for then you need to follow the money. A recent report by the New York Times showed what Obama's been claiming all along is true--90% of his campaign's donors have contributed LESS than $100. I know because I'm one of them. More than 900,000 ordinary Americans have donated to his campaign so far. On the other hand, the bulk of Senator Clinton's campaign funds come from wealthy donors who write checks for the maximum amount of more than $2000. Know any blue collar Americans who have that kind of money to donate to a campaign? On top of that, she has also taken lobbyist and PAC contributions, tying her to the same old politics as usual Washington machine. Barack Obama has not. Every politician owes his or her office to someone. Obama will owe his to a wide cross-section of ordinary Americans.
Lastly, you might still be thinking that Hillary Clinton has stood with working class Americans on the issues that matter to them. After all, she's making speeches (which she says don't matter) all around Ohio right now about her "four point plan" to reassess NAFTA's impact on working Americans. Has anyone forgotten that it was she and her husband who brought NAFTA to us in the first place? I suppose she can return to her refrain of "if I'd only known then what I know now" to explain her vote on this as well as her vote on the war AND on her failure to bring comprehensive health care reform in the past, but are we really going to buy it? I'll agree, she has a lot more experience than Barack Obama does at being wrong on critical issues. Barack Obama will get things right the first time.
So why did she do so well in the early contests with those "blue collar" voters? The obvious answer is simple--name recognition. When you're working a 40-hour week and coming home to a stack of bills and kids who will be hoping to leave for college soon, you don't have time to follow politics and learn about someone like Barack Obama who is, admittedly, fairly new to the political scene. But as voters have gotten to know him, Obama has made gains everywhere he's campaigned. Expect that trend to continue.