After insulting white female Trump voters who dared vote against her, Hillary Clinton is attempting to backtrack.
Last week in India Clinton said Democrats “do not do well with white men, and we don’t do well with married, white women. And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”
In a long winded Facebook post, Hillary wrote:
…I was also asked about women, specifically white women, the majority of whom have not voted for Democrats in recent history. I did better with them than previous Democratic nominees, but still lost them overall to a candidate who relies on scare tactics and false attacks, masking the fact that he is otherwise no friend to most Americans.
I also mentioned something in passing that’s gotten a lot of negative attention: that there is anecdotal evidence and some research to suggest that women are unfortunately more swayed by men than the other way around. As much as I hate the possibility, and hate saying it, it’s not that crazy when you think about our ongoing struggle to reach gender balance – even within the same household.
I did not realize how hard it would hit many who heard it. I was out there having a conversation, and this was one piece of a larger point about how Democrats need to do better with white women, because I know in my heart that Democrats have much more to offer them. Do I believe that some women look at a powerful woman and question whether she can lead, maybe voting for the man their husband is voting for instead? It may not be universally true or easy to hear, but yes, it’s a dynamic still at play in our society. I know this because even I spent parts of my life wondering if I could achieve the same as male leaders, and a lot of that insecurity stemmed from my gender and how society views women. When I was serving in various roles in public life, I was always more popular when I was working for or defending a man then when I was out there on my own. That’s the point I was making, in an effort to explain to an audience some of the many dynamics that have gone into these tumultuous last few years.
I understand how some of what I said upset people and can be misinterpreted. I meant no disrespect to any individual or group. And I want to look to the future as much as anybody.
But our future requires us to learn from 2016. We need to protect our election systems from intrusion by Russia or anyone else. We need to combat voter suppression and the propagation of fake and misleading news. I fear we are not doing anywhere near enough on those fronts, and I know we can do better.
I love our country every bit as much as a private citizen as I did as a candidate, Secretary of State, Senator from New York, and First Lady. That’s why I don’t want us to remain passive in the face of these threats. I want us to be free to focus on the future. A future in which I hope to be fighting for Democratic values of equal opportunity, social inclusion, and strong communities; for an economy that works for everyone; and for lifting up the next generation of leadership, particularly women.
So to those upset or offended by what I said last week, I hope this explanation helps to explain the point I was trying to make. And I hope now that we can get back to the real business before us: Protecting our democracy and building a future we can all share.