Letters to the Editor

• Misses the point

  [Read the article: What Pennsylvania tells us]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  ALthough Joan makes some good points in her article (not withstanding the condescending title), I think there is a basic flaw in her reasoning. The media, and Joan here in particular, assumes that this state was won because of "deficiencies" or "personal style" or "connection". There may be some truth to this, but what is ignored is the fact that this state was entirely in Clinton's wheelhouse. Not only were the demographics set up perfectly for her, but she had the strong backing of a very popular Governor who had enormous influence over the state party apparatus (which by and large worked for her) plus the support of both mayors of the two largest cities. The support of Nutter, the black Philadelphia mayor can not be underestimated, in cutting into Obama's Philadelphia margin. There were also six weeks to focus on this perect storm of a state. Imagine Pennsylvania coming two weeks after North Carolina. (A fascinating point was made by an African American reorter that the Clinton's will attempt to negate a big Obama North Carolina victory because it is so weighted toward the African American Community-in other words "they" don't count, but the all sacrosanct white blue collar population is all that matters.) So the Clinton racial subtext will continue.

  Clinton's bravado and "connection" to all those "bitter" blue collar folks, as I mentioned in a previous letter, is all hypocricy as her vitriol toward their lack of support during her husband's administration is documented, as is her own whining and carping before asuming her "Harry Trumman" persona.

  I agree with Joan that Obama should take it to her more, but he is in a quandry and from his autobiography has a strong distaste for the politics of the "pornography of the trivial". Many have commented that he is loathe to attack a fellow Democrat. Clinton, on the other hand, has no compunction about destroying anyone to pursue what she wants.

  The "bitter" comments slowed Obama and probably cost him 5 points, particularly because Clinton was willing to pile on in a most noxious manner in spite of her own and husband's history of similar views. (And Jim Webb and others by the way).

  So if Joan thinks this is some "admirable" quality, then she can have this unsavory person who in my opinion puts ethics way behind ambition and frankly is a pathological liar. The stark fact is that bottom feeding negative campaigning which had no relationship to reality once again worked, which is a sad commentary on what is acceptable to the American people.

  However, to Joan and others, who continue to operate within the box, rather than demonstrate the pereception to help dissemble it, this unfortunate circumstance will perpetuate. If one wants to examine forcefully Obama's weaknesses, which is fair game, and seem to be all the rage at Salon these days, then balance demands that the same scrutiny and truth be aimed at Clinton. However, this Joan, and Salon,(and the media) are unable or unwilling to do. This is called hypocricy and a double standard, and is very similar to the burying of the story of George Bush's National Guard service.

  Two last points about "electability". As Josh Marshall emphasized, how Obama does vis a vis Clinton is different than how he would do vis a vis McCain. Secondly, as another LW has mentioned, if an African American candidate who has won more states, more delgates, and more popular votes (a win is a win-don't the Clintons say that?) and is DENIED the nomination by fundamentally a white super delegate group in favor of a candidate who has strongly demnounced the activist base of the party (which got no play in the press or here-how about it Joan-double standard again), a candidate who ABSOLUTELY will NOT attract independents or Republicans, what do you suppose that candidates chances are in the general?

  But Joan is not interested. It would disrupt the nice narrative the media has constructed and would not shed kind light on her gal.

  Where has that been discussed by the pro CLinton Salon pundits. Oops, not there. So much for incisiveness of analysis.

  Permalink Thursday, April 24, 2008 07:49 AM