Letters to the Editor
ceytron
Published Letters: 69 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Blame goes to one side in this case
[Read the article: The race vs. gender war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am tired of the suggestion that has been made over and over that both Obama and Clinton have equally contributed to this squabble.
I may be an Obama supporter, but I also like to think of myself as somewhat objective in my political analyses. When has Obama done anything to stir the pot?
The Clintons continue to make disparaging remarks (it takes a PRESIDENT to get it done, what a fairy tale) and then play the victim card whenever people call them on their bullshit! I'm sick of it, the Clintons play the victim card way too many times.
I respect that the Clintons desperately want to win. What serious candidate wouldn't? But the tactics they are using, the brutal way they are playing with race will lead to nothing but a Pyrrhic victory. Hillary may win the nomination if she keeps this up, but she will find that key Democratic constituents will be too alienated to give her support in the general election.
-
@abbeywood
[Read the article: The race vs. gender war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It wouldn't be political discussion thread without a Ron Paul support jumping in and rambling about something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
You guys would crash a thread about the economics factors contributing to the rising cost of dairy products.
-
@anonymous
[Read the article: The race vs. gender war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Words can have mulitple meanings to multiple groups, Karl Rove has used that tactic brilliantly over the past 8 years.
For example:
Clinton: "Give me a break! This WHOLE thing is a fairy tale!" On the surface you could argue he is only talking about Obama's war position. But then, why didn't he say" "This whole ARGUMENT is a fairy tale"? or "This whole POSITION is a fairy tale?".
Why not? Because he was trying to disparage Obama! Obama, the black man who trancends race and politics, the black man who wins over white voters. A fairy tale that Black Americans should not rest their hopes on.
And as for Hillary Clinton's MLK/Johnson comment, I would only ask this: WHY, WHY did she feel the need to bring up that point in the first place? What possible relevance does the roles of MLK, Johnson, and the civil rights movement have on this race? To some extent, her comments were akin to suggesting that it was the British who deserved credit for liberating India, not Ghandi.
-
Fallout from the truce
[Read the article: Betting little in Las Vegas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Clinton/Obama squabble over race is over for now. I imagine both candidates received a flurry of angry phone calls from party stalwarts imploring them to cease the destructive behavior and both soon saw the imperative need to get off that track.
The question now becomes, what will the consequences be for both candidates now that the dust is settling?
I believe that ultimately this episode will work to Clinton's disadvantage and Obama's advantage for a few reasons.
First, though both camps engaged in this debacle, there's no getting around that Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and their surrogate fired the first shots in this exchange and fired the most shots in this exchange.
And lets be honest, some of the statements made against Obama, particularly by Bob Johnson and Representative Charlie Rangel, were vicious and unpalatable.
Second, Obama was the first to signal the truce. But what is more important is that he did so in a manner that was truly genuine in its approach. There was not a touch of sarcasm nor a hidden barb in Obama's tone or words as he praised the Clinton's records on civil rights. Clinton's follow-up was equally sincere in tone and message, but what choice did she have when so gracious an olive branch was extended?
So, why do I think that Obama comes out on top? To begin, I think the Clinton's attacks on Obama will alienate a lot of black voters. I am not black, but I can only imagine how uncomfortable it must be to see one of the most positive and powerful black politicians in American history cruelly denigrated by black supporters of his white opponent.
But I also think Obama comes out on top because the Clintons failed to achieve their primary goal from this whole tussle about race. It has been speculated by many pundits and political observers that Hillary Clinton was pushing the race issue as a way of scaring white voters away from Obama by forcing him to focus on his race and his relationship with black America.
I don't think Hillary succeeded in part because Barrack deftly ended the feud so early. For all this talk about race, the focus of the arguments were always on the Clinton's commitment to civil rights and Obama's perceived smearing of that commitment. By affirming the Clinton's civil rights record and simultaneously ordering his campaign to stop commenting on this issue, Obama stopped the process before it could redefine the racial image he portrays to America.
During last night's debate, Obama worked hard to regain his former image, an image of a politician who believes his approach is fundamentally different and can bring about fundamentally different results. It is an image that is not hampered by his black skin.
Over the next few weeks, Obama is certainly not going to reignite the civil rights issue again. And I can't see how Clinton or her supporters can either. So, Clinton goes into Nevada and South Carolina with diminished support from African Americans while Obama gains African Americans supporters while retaining his initial base.