Letters to the Editor
lolcait
Published Letters: 266 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Stop looking for racism where there is none
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]His policies are almost identical to hers.
So why wouldn't they vote for him?
Nobody believes his policies are identical to hers. The WCW voters think she is a populist and hardcore on economic reform that will help them. They think he couldn't care less about issues other than abortion and other "elitist" issues.
Is she saying white people that they are too racist to vote for a black man?
No, she's saying they are responding to her message and not his. She probably would like to point out that black voters would also be responding to her message if there were not a black candidate but that would be impolitic (and no, there is nothing wrong with blacks identity voting).
Black folks have supported whites in every single election. Are they less racist than whites?
There has never been a competitive black candidate in the national election. Blacks tend to support viable black candidates over white candidates.
Is she saying working class whites that they are too stupid to vote in their own self interests?
You don't get it. Working class whites she's talking about have other "interests" like religion and guns and national security, and they perceive him as radical on these.
The truth is that many of these voters are Democrats on economic policy but conservative on social policy, so unless they think the Democrat is going to fight for them on the economic issues, they would just as soon vote on national security or guns.
They don't think Obama gives a damn so they would just as soon vote for McCain if Clinton isn't nominated.
-
@lateagain
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's agree that she's not racist for pointing out which people she appeals to. But let's agree that pointing out separate groups she's appealing to is not talking about her message. Can we agree that pointing out which demographic appeals to which candidate is, by definition, divisive?
Let's do an exercise:
Everyone pretend you're a candidate similar to Hillary Clinton, who is asked by a reporter to spell out an electoral rationale for the superdelegates to consider.
Tell that reporter about where you see your strengths in big swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Explain why you are the stronger general election candidate.
*The rules are, though, that you may NOT include any racial references when pointing to your strength among the Democratic base (working class).
GO!
-
Disgusting
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look how generous the Obamapaths are.
They acknowledge the comments weren't racist, but instead of being appalled by the way the comments are being played, they just continue to argue that the Clintons have "used race."
Problem is, the Clintons didn't use race. Obama played the race card and Obamapaths followed the agenda-driven media nitpicking and interpreting of remarks like stupid sheep.
This endless, phony race card crap is the most disgusting aspect of this entire campaign.
Salon owes Hillary Clinton an apology for misrepresenting her comment which was neither clumsy nor racist, much less "channeling George Wallace.'
-
"Hard working" has been used all along
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The insertion of the phrase 'hard-working Americans' strikes me as just part of that political-speak that candidates use to suck up to voters. It's obvious to me that what she was going to say was 'working white Americans' only she awkwardly threw in 'hard-working' at the last second.
You're correct.
If you go back and look at Clinton's speeches and debate remarks, she always uses "hard working Americans" in place of "working class." For some reason she or her advisers have decided it works better.
In fact, I don't think she's ever used "working class" and when she uses "hard working" it stands out because it's always in an argument that any politically interested person would recognize was referencing the working class. So you notice it as political-speak.
Doesn't matter though. It's fun to score cheap points against the Clintons and even better when you get to call them RACISTS. The most fun of all is comparing them to George Wallace.
-
I predict Salon will apologize
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's my deal. If Clinton comes out by Monday (generous, I know, but it's a weekend) with an apology and/or clarification, I will happily let the issue drop. (I'll still disagree with her point, but better that she be wrong than wrong AND a race-baiter.)
If not, then it is fair game, and she deserves to be ridiculed.
Is that fair? Any thoughts?
Why should she apologize for your stupidity or dishonesty?
The comments were neither racist nor ambiguous.
Only with bad faith can they can be presented the way they have been by you Obamapaths.
I predict Salon will apologize for this one.
-
The Obamapath Party
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The popular vote doesn't matter, only the choice demographic matters. It's not one person one vote, it's not even weighted voting for demographic importance, it's one demographic all the votes.
Is that the Democratic Party you want to belong to?
The Democratic party you belong to has rules that say if neither candidate reaches the pledged delegate number required to win the nomination, there is evidence that neither one is stronger than the other and the supers come in and prevent us from nominating a LOSER.
How do they make that determination? By analyzing the demographics and electoral map and likelihood of who can beat the Republican.
But let's talk about the Democratic party YOU want to belong to. One that gives the nomination to someone who fights enfranchisement of two huge states because he and his supporters think he's entitled to the nomination and black people will riot if he doesn't get it.
Incidentally that's not the party you belong to either. The party you belong to agreed to re voting in those states. Your candidate shut it down.