Letters to the Editor
-
What the hell is "race based" anyway?
This is in response to exchanges such as these:
"You give valid reasons for blacks to vote for Obama beyond race, and there are many. But you still ignore the disproportionate percentage."
"I don't see why, theoretically, black people can't vote together without it being race based?"
race based? What is that?
As if we're talking about some shallow, cosmetic distinction ("skin color") that's behind black people's enthusiasm about the first ever serious black contender for president (you know, something you could throw "It shouldn't matter if you're black, white, purple or orange" at.) As if you could take out the awareness of collective disenfranchisement which stretches back through the families of real people, which children grow up with, which informs an individual's experience of the world around him/her. Obama's candidacy is an historic event for black people in an intimate way at the same time it's historic on a symbolic level for the country as a whole. You only have to think for a minute how the experience of an African-American schoolchild coming to age with a black president in the white house would be qualitatively different than with the history books being how they are as of this date. The characterization of "voting for race" is kind of trivial when the story is as deep as the black experience in America.
-
McCall - sorry, but no.
I knew, and I mean I just KNEW that the rightwing would find a way as they always do to continue power when they so obviously aren't wanted. This time it was to peel off the idealistic left again from the ranks. It was transparent and obvious and nobody who lived through what they did in the Clinton years, much less Gore vs. Nader or heaven forbid Dukakis and Mondale should have fallen for it.
It's been obvious that Barrack Dukakis can't win a general since super Tuesday. It doesn't matter if every single one of us switches allegiances. He can't win.
There is no way a Democrat can win with just the African American and the liberal vote. 40 years should have taught you that.
So, no I have no interest in putting my emotions and energy into a no-win situation.
Rather, I'm just going to prepare for the inevitable: 8 years of John McCain and a solidly rightwing country for the rest of my life.
And oh, thanks a lot. I hope we won't be hearing any black people crying (as always) about how hard they have it now.
You can count me among the new unsympathetics. My kids, after all, are going to have to live in this country - or what's left of it.
-
What's the real motive for staying in now?
I've been trying to figure it out for quite some time. I have a hard time accepting at face value that Hillary thinks she can still win it. I've heard the 2012 theory, of course. I don't really buy it. People prefer a graceful loser, and a lot of people will bitterly remember her campaign for it's Divisiveness, at a time when Unity is needed. I certainly will. I still plan to vote for her if she gets her miracle hail-mary (she won't). But it will be the last time I vote for a DLC candidate that runs a less than ethical campaign against her own alleged party.
Clinton was always near the last of my list going in. She was above Kucinich only because he said war was completely off the table, and he wouldn't kill Osama if given the chance, and called it assassination, and kept at it even when Bill Maher tried to get him to back off of it. This is a dangerous world, and Iraq and Vietnam show that we can fight unjust wars, but it doesn't make every war unjust.
However, I defended her and Bill against all of the crazy rightwingnut attacks early on. I was once a vigorous Bill Clinton defender, and I'm sure I still will defend him about certain things in the future (guess), but he has lost quite a lot of political stock with me, and Hillary has lost nearly all of it, as a direct result of the late stages of this campaign.
I cannot believe that Bill and Hillary, him a Rhodes scholar, her a Wellesley grad, still think they might win the campaign. The curtain came a while back, but up until yesterday, she had a weak argument for continuing her campaign. Yesterday sealed the deal, to borrow a phrase, and they both know it. Superdelegates are not waiting to find some reason to pick Clinton. They are waiting to endorse, mainly for Barack, for as long as she keeps up the charade, to maintain the appearance of fairness. Further, money talks, and Barack's ability to raise a huge amount of funds from a huge amount of people is not going to be ignored by hundreds of politicians. If they are looking for an excuse to vote for anyone, it's him.
So, if I am right, and they know perfectly well that the race is over, what is the reason to continue? I can't plausibly guess. From their actions, the only thing that seems to make sense is that I'm wrong, and they are deluding themselves. I realize they have clout in the party, but that is not going to win the day.
If she continues (I sense there is at least a chance she will drop out, with her media timeout campaign huddle today), I wait to see if she stops with the slime machine, and salvages some grace from this mess. For her sake, and ours, I hope she does.
-
The "real" motive for staying in is obvious. Barrack Dukakis can't win and she cares.
Whereas he doesn't.
-
@John McCall
Thanks for the insightful post, Sir. You paint a hopeful picture for the general election.
And, it is interesting that you use so many boxing analogies with regard to Obama; "he clocked her..." "the gloves are off..." deadly with his punches," etc. It is precisely that aspect which is missing from Obama's campaign that gives many people such pause. And it is the very quality in Clinton that so many hardscrabble Americans relate to and admire. I don't know if you read Maurenn Dowd's article on Obama's awkwardness nd disconnect with working stiffs in Indiana. I have mixed feelings but it was, as ususal, a good read.
The rationalist in me knows that either Democrat -- heck, any Democrat-- would wipe the floor with McCain in a one-on-one. But, it would be nice to see something out of Obama, or his running mate that would bring old-school working class whites into the mix more (I'm an "ethnic" American so I say this without being self-serving). The fact that Clinton did so well with this segment as a Democrat is remarkable and, in it's own way, very forward. It would be nice to see Obama's base be about something other than racial demographics and the same old left-liberal vanguard (students, white eggheads, journalists, etc.). A lot can be learned from Clinton's approach in these primaries. If Obama is as smart as I'm always being told (and if he ultimately gets the nomination, which is still not yet in the bank), he could use these lessons to build a more inclusive Democratic candidacy.
But I do like your scenario and the optmimism that you exhibit. Power to you.