Hillary Clinton, Working-Class Hero?

The New Republic: Blue Collar Voters Support Her Because She's Paid Her Dues

(The New Republic)  This column was written by Noam Scheiber.

---

Probably the most important insight about the Democratic presidential contest so far comes care of the famed political pundit Nick Sobotka, a character from HBO's "The Wire." Toward the end of season two, after all hell has broken loose at the Baltimore port, Nicky troops to the local stevedores union in search of work. But these are tough times for the stevedores. What little work there is has already been parceled out to more experienced men. "Seniority sucks," Nicky sighs. To which another stevedore responds, "If you ain't senior."

What does this have to do with the looming death match between Barack Obama and the senator from Punjab? A lot, as it happens. Pretty much every poll taken since the beginning of the year has shown two things: First, that Hillary Clinton enjoys a sizeable cushion among working-class voters (a Gallup poll out Monday shows Hillary with a 10-point lead among voters with "some college" and a 23-point lead among voters with a high school education or less). And second, that Hillary has a huge advantage on questions about which candidate has the "best experience" to be president (66 to 9 over Obama in an early June Washington Post poll).

These two details are not unrelated. In fact, it's pretty clear that working-class voters favor Hillary over Obama largely because they value experience. But it's the reason they value experience that's so interesting: Working-class Democrats, and particularly unionized Democrats, tend to see seniority as the only acceptable way of divvying up sought-after work. (And what is the presidency if not the most sought-after job on the planet?) For them, the problem with an inexperienced candidate isn't that he or she is unprepared to be president. It's that such a candidacy flies in the face of their basic sense of fairness.

Of course, it's possible that voters think experience is substantively, as opposed to just symbolically, important. But I doubt it. Consider the following paradox: Voters routinely tell pollsters that experience matters in their choice of presidential candidate. The most obvious reason to demand experience, as my colleague John B. Judis has written, is that the American president has nearly unchecked power over U.S. foreign policy. And yet the pre-presidential experience of four out of the last five White House occupants has consisted of governing a state — a job that affords few opportunities to dust off those Metternich quotes.

It's not that governors lack experience per se. Running a state is tough work. There's a legislature to deal with, a bureaucracy to manage, powerful interest groups to navigate. Anyone who succeeds at these tasks must have genuine political skill. But the fact that this experience is irrelevant to the most important responsibility a president will face suggests voters don't necessarily deem experience to be important in its own right.

In the case of Hillary v. Obama, experience turns out to be most useful as a proxy for the vast sociological chasm between the two camps. On the one hand, many of Hillary's most loyal supporters lack college degrees and toil away at low-skilled jobs. Now if you happen to be a poorly educated worker who's nonetheless eking out a decent living, no prospect is more alarming than the thought of losing out one day because someone a little younger, a little flashier, leapt ahead of you in line. There is a comforting order to the world you know. And that order demands that people pay their dues before getting promoted. The alternative is a bitter competition between you and your co-workers — and who knows how you'll fare in that?

In the eyes of working-class Democrats, Hillary is someone who's paid her dues — first in the White House, where she weathered a terrific, eight-year assault from conservatives, then as the scrupulously dependable senator from New York. If, after all this, Hillary doesn't win the nomination, then the system they've bought into their entire working lives will have been turned upside down.

Obama's base, by contrast, consists primarily of his sociological peers: highly educated achievers who get paid to think abstractly and believe that compensation should reflect performance. Nothing makes these meritocrats shudder like the thought of having the sharpest insight or the best proposal and yet still having to cool their heels while their less able, less creative elders plod ahead. Even among educated voters (as opposed to voters in general), it's not hard to pick out the Obama supporters. They're the charter-school entrepreneurs as opposed to the public-school teachers; the management consultants rather than the government lawyers; the hot-shot hedge-fund managers rather than the stodgy CEOs.

For these people, the idea of a candidate paying his dues is absurd. If Obama is the most intelligent, most dynamic, most articulate candidate in the field, then he should be the nominee, regardless of how many years he may or may not have languished in the Senate.

If you want a feel for how all this might play out in the Democratic primaries, you could do worse than to read Illinois Senator Donne Trotter's pronouncement on the matter this past weekend. "Well, it's a big leap from here to there," Trotter told the AP, referring to Obama's plan to move from the Illinois statehouse to the White House in a brisk four years. But, Trotter hastened to add: "I couldn't say he wouldn't be up to the task."

Think of Trotter as a kind of median voter on the experience question — someone genuinely ambivalent about the importance of the attribute. On the one hand, Trotter concedes that Obama is prepared to be president. On the other hand, he seems slightly affronted that a man whose political resume is not much more impressive than his own would be considered presidential material. My guess is that if you can figure out who'll win the Donne Trotters of the world, you will have found your Democratic nominee.

[sjc_1]

Brown,

I do not know how you come to those conclusions, but you must be smoking something. Sober up and come back when you can act like a human being.

[xzavierbrown]

Iran/Contra was one of THE most treasonous acts ever committed by a sitting president.
Posted by sjc_1 at 03:47 PM : Jun 21, 2007
+ report abuse

***

so you agree that THERE ARE Weapons of Mass Destruction in middle east?? if you are upset about that..dig the f cu ker up and burn his corpse..till then can we worry about those weapons and terrorists?

[xzavierbrown]

Iran/Contra was one of THE most treasonous acts ever committed by a sitting president.
Posted by sjc_1 at 03:47 PM : Jun 21, 2007
+ report abuse

***

so you agree that THERE ARE Weapons of Mass Destruction in middle east?? if you are upset about that..dig the f cu ker up and burn his corpse..till then can we worry about those weapons and terrorists?

[sparks224]

processor2,
FDR was from a very wealthy old money family and he was a working class hero. Pretty funny hugh.

[sparks224]

"...Iran/Contra was one of THE most treasonous acts ever committed by a sitting president"
Posted by sjc_1

Yes, but that Hillary thinks she's so smart. She just makes me so mad!

[sjc_1]

All the stuff cooked up by Ken Starr in his witch hunt pales in comparison to Watergate, Iran/Contra, WMD lies, secret energy meetings and illegal wiretaps.

You guys really should get some proportion. No way Travelgate is in the same league with Iran/Contra.

Iran/Contra was one of THE most treasonous acts ever committed by a sitting president.

[guysdigdirt]

Hillary was recently asked what her first act would be as President if elected and she got a huge applause when she said she would bring the troops home. But she did not say she would bring them all home, even though she implied it. Not too long before that she told a group of VIPs she thought we should have our troops in IRAQ, and she foresaw a need for them to still be there after even after she finished her second term as President, if she did serve two terms. Will she tell the public that? No!

The difference between Hillary and Bush is only that one will stand up and take credit for what one does and the other will take the glory, but never face up to a mistake. Clinton voted to send the troops to Iraq but as soon as it was no longer popular, she turned her back on the troops.

You really want her leading the country?

[guysdigdirt]

Hillary was recently asked what her first act would be as President if elected and she got a huge applause when she said she would bring the troops home. But she did not say she would bring them all home, even though she implied it. Not too long before that she told a group of VIPs she thought we should have our troops in IRAQ, and she foresaw a need for them to still be there after even after she finished her second term as President, if she did serve two terms. Will she tell the public that? No!

The difference between Hillary and Bush is only that one will stand up and take credit for what one does and the other will take the glory, but never face up to a mistake. Clinton voted to send the troops to Iraq but as soon as it was no longer popular, she turned her back on the troops.

You really want her leading the country?

[processor2]

HILLARY CLINTON !!!!!!! WORKING CLASS ???????


Bwa-Hahahahahahahahahaha,,,

Bwa-Hahahahahahahahaha
Oh God, Oh God, can't breathe, can't breath
Bwa-Hahahahahahahahahaha,,,
Bwa
-Hahahahahahahahaha

...

[processor2]

HILLARY CLINTON !!!!!!! WORKING CLASS ???????


Bwa-Hahahahahahahahahaha,,,

Bwa-Hahahahahahahahaha
Oh God, Oh God, can't breathe, can't breath
Bwa-Hahahahahahahahahaha,,,
Bwa
-Hahahahahahahahaha

...

[neoconnie]

That's right! All the scandals under Clinton people forget about just because we have about 14 troops a day being killed in Iraq because of all that faulty information Clinton left for Bush to read.

I don't think its fair that Clinton had oral *** in the oval office, yet people jump all over President Bush just because he let the terrorists fly planes into our buildings and let 11 million illegal immigrants cross the border.

Travelgate was much worse than anything Bush has done! Firing people in the travel office was immoral. And everyone knows a President can replace U.S. Attorneys when they refuse to target Democrats.

I've got to run now, I Tivo'ed Anne Coulter's appearance on Fox News and I want to watch it over and over again, like praying over and over again.

[mbcsmith]

Travelgate, Vince Foster, Whitewater, missing law firm documents, I didn't know Bill was unfaithful.....

[katg21]

Just get the Republicans out of there! Their tenure has brought us so many problems, it is going to take years to get over their incompetence!
Posted by sesanders1 at 12:59 PM : Jun 21, 2007

Well the dems did a heck of a job *** up the social security system; let's give 'em a chance to screw up some more.

[katg21]

supremely qualified for the job
Posted by sesanders1 at 12:59 PM : Jun 21, 2007

How is Hillary "supremely qualified?"

[neoconnie]

Well at least Fox News is a Christian network! I'd rather have my children learning from Bill O'Reilly than the liberal media like NBC, CBS, ABC, TNT, CNN, MSN, MSNBC, and ATT.

I think it is important that a news organization presents a fair and balanced approach to family values and anti-abortion ideals.

The liberal media supports the baby killing Democrats and terrorists, and Fox News can prove it! And they keep giving government checks to negroes too, which is UN-Christian!

I like all the Democratic candidates...Hillary is as sharp as any man, a fighter, supremely qualified for the job, totally prepared for appearances, and above all, rational...that said, I like Obama and Edwards and wish Gore would run. Just get the Republicans out of there! Their tenure has brought us so many problems, it is going to take years to get over their incompetence!

[jolsonbear]

At least CBS has filed this piece in the "opinion" section.

FOX NEWS (an oxymoron) just splatters thier neocon opinion all over the f---ing place.

[neoconnie]

Richardson advocates killing babies. I always vote again the baby killers.

[fredgrad2000]

"True to form, the Clinton Broadcasting Service's (CBS) new news director is producing pro Hillary pieces at an alarming rate." infidelUS

Definitely true - I expected them to back the Dems and bash the GOP; in-line with all the major media; but to so blatantly support Hillary in the face of all the other Dems is a bit surprising..

Only when compared to Obama's 2 years in the Senate and Edwards one term where he campaigned for most of it does Hillary's "resume" as a one-term senator and former first lady equate to experienced!! And only in the left-wing New Republic does a Wellesley educated lawyer get defined as "working class"!! The Dems have experienced candidates and those who have risen from nothing to high levels; those that could win in landslides rather than polarized 51% wins - but they've, for some reason, all been relegated to "second tier"! Tell me which GOP candidate could BEAT Bill Richardson's experience (McCain could probably EQUAL it, not beat it maybe); could appeal to as many Hispanics; or convert as many "blue" states as he could "red" ones (MAYBE Giuliani; but doubt it against Richardson; maybe aginst Hil or Edwards he could convert a lot of purple states red)? I just can't figure out why this guy isn't head and shoulders ahead in the Dem polls - he is the Dems' most experienced candidate who also has the best shot at a landslide win in the general election and possibility of uniting the nation afterward as a non-insider...

[neoconnie]

"This is a perfect example of why FOX dominates cable news. Fair and balanced reporting."

That is like SOOOO true! And I watch the other highest rated show on TV everyday: Jerry Springer.