Letters to the Editor
lolcait
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Race card players brain dead?
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To me that's what is offensive, and it's obvious that it wasn't an accident. I find it outrageous that she would say that the majority of the voters (the ones who support her opponent) are anything less than hardworking Americans. It's way worse than saying, for example, that someone might be bitter because government has failed them.
What are you talking about?
She is referring to electoral DEMOGRAPHICS she is winning. She included "white Americans" to clarify that whites are NOT the only ones who are hardworking.
Are you interpreting "hard working Americans, white Americans" to mean that she is equating the two concepts (because if you are you're an idiot), or do you understand she was narrowing the category of "hard working Americans" to describe the demographic she is winning and to make sure she doesn't imply the black hard workers are supporting her?
Can't you people read? Your eagerness to play the race card has made you unbelievably stupid.
-
She didn't misspeak, the remarks were misinterpreted then misreported
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She's not saying she misspoke because she didn't misspeak.
She spoke in clear English and was misinterpreted by people who allowed the Drudge Report to interpret some ordinary dry demographic comments as racist.
An open minded and sane listen and read would have led any intelligent person to interpret them correctly.
Instead, they are being interpreted in a way that would only make logical sense if they were uttered by a KKK Grand Wizard.
Enough already.
-
Neat trick
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]NOW, you write an article like this. Exactly what is she supposed to do?
It doesn't matter. If she includes "whites" she's dog whistling to whitey that she's white like them. If she excludes "whites" she's saying only whites are hardworking.
Neat how the Obama race card players do that, isn't it? Helps to have a media that promotes their disgusting race card playing too.
-
Not a thing wrong with it
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and the very fact that Clinton is even thinking in those terms is the point.
She isn't thinking in those terms, she is trying to describe an income demographic that she is winning and trying to do it without being dishonest or implying something that WOULD be racist.
The base of the Democratic party is working class, low income. There is nothing wrong with noting that she is winning that base in important swing states when asked about strategy.
She wants to get the point across that "I'm winning the working class" and "I'm winning low income" and I'm winning non-college" but she can't say that without including "white" because she isn't winning blacks of any demographic. She can't exclude "white" without implying blacks aren't part of the "working" class.
If you were attempting to describe that electoral advantage in those states without dishonestly claiming more support than you have or implying blacks are not a part of the "working class" demographic, how would you put it?
-
@Uncle
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She's saying what many people say here. Her voting block is her's alone and Obama can never win it. It's not directly the race card, it's the fear of the race card: The white blue collar working class will never vote for the black dude. They're trying to marginalize Obama again, just like Jesse Jackson, that inspiring, but fringe candidate.
If the final two were Clinton and some white dude that appeals to "eggheads" and had Obama's record, she would probably be winning 90% of the working class/no education black vote.
It's not racist for Clinton to point out that she is the candidate that appeals to that low income, working class base (aside from the blacks within it).
You might be right that she is suggesting that this group is hers alone and would be lost to McCain in November. But nowhere is she implying that the reason is that group would never vote for the black dude because he's black.
They would not vote for any candidate they perceived as elitist and out of touch or too liberal on other issues they care about besides economic.
Discussion about whether Democratic candidates can "win back Reagan Democrats" has been going on forever and until now nobody said that when a candidate made a claim that he could appeal to them where others could not it was somehow "racist."
So once again it's the Obama supporters playing the race card.
Clinton's observations were about her message, and there is nothing to indicate that she was signaling she alone could win those voters because she's white.
-
Racism didn't emerge, a real difference emerged
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She demonstrates no such advantage for them on paper given that she and Obama advocate the same policies, and so it is a cynical exploitation of something that emerged organically, and I suppose by organically I mean manifested originally a little bit by rural racism and then hammered home by a narrative-driven media
Completely disagree that something racial emerged. Something substantive emerged and it was a result of her focus on a populist message versus his focus on a "Look at me, I'm awesome" message.
When she debated Obama in Ohio, everyone was expecting fireworks and instead from her we got boring laundry lists of specific policies. I wondered what the hell she was doing because I hoped she would go on the attack. Well, turns out she was winning Ohio.
She was talking to working class voters. Er, white working class voters -- not blacks because blacks in all demographics are voting for Obama.
It didn't matter if his web site lists the same policies. They were getting the message loud and clear that she had a message and a plan, and that he was all talk (about things they don't care about or are too grown up to respond to like "hope and change") and no action.