Letters to the Editor
-
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I have never been in a saloon or a clubhouse, so give it a rest Joe, and Carville is right. She had every right to say what she said. So there.
-
Necessary and/or Sufficient Causes
The argument continues to confound necessary causes with sufficient causes.
In order to become a serious candidate for President, there must be something or set of things which attracts attention and interest. It is a 'necessary' cause to be attractive, to stand out. That's not enough to get one elected. There must be other qualities as well. Further, possessing one such attribute does not preclude the possession of others. Finalkly, attractiveness is not sufficent to produce success.
Obama has attracted attention for a variety of reasons: his rhetoric it one, his achievements are another, his race is a third. I very much hope to vote for him next fall, but it is not very likely that I would be looking forward to that prospect but for the fact that he is a man of color in a country which finally perhaps wants to be done as soon as possible with the relevance of color.
People argue as if Ferraro had claimed that the only reason he is a serious candidate is that he is black, that his race is a sufficient explanation for his success.
That is simply not was was alleged.
I do wish all of his supporters were as intellectually honest as is my candidate.
-
Charismatic candidates do better.
You bring up a good point, libertyson. More on that from an expert (George Lakoff, the linguist who writes about the way issues are framed in politics):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/what-counts-as-an-issue_b_84177.html
A sample:
...we began by analyzing Ronald Reagan's strengths as a politician. According to his chief strategist, Richard Wirthlin, Reagan realized that most voters do not vote primarily on the basis of policies, but rather on (1) values, (2) connection, (3) authenticity, (4) trust, and (5) identity. That is, Reagan spoke about his values, and policies for him just exemplified values. He connected viscerally with people. He was perceived as authentic, as really believing what he said. As a result, people trusted him and identified with him. Even if they had different positions on issues, they knew where he stood. Even when his economic policies did not produce a "Morning in America," voters still felt a connection to him because he spoke to what they wanted America to be. That was what allowed Reagan to gain the votes of so many independents and Democrats.
and this
Obama understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.
I encourage all to read the whole thing, though, and not take me or Lakoff out of context. This is a discussion of the language of campaigns, not an endorsement of Reagan policy.
-
@ lateagain
My response to your inquiry:
"You know, while there is certainly some technical truth to what she says, her saying it was meant to demean, and I'd rather she'd have stuck to the issues".
And, may I also add that Obama's references to Hillary as representing the "old" politics were also meant to demean. Or his saying that when Hillary is "feeling down" she attacks was meant to demean. Or how about Michelle Obama's comments that "If you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House". Is that talking about the issues or is it meant to demean the opposing candidate? Sorry, it's called politics, yes, the old politics. As the saying goes, it ain't beanbag, and neither candidate is immune. What I think irks some Clinton supporters, but I'll just speak for myself, is the notion that Senator Obama is somehow above trying to diminish his opponent's stature and sticks "purely" to the issues. I just don't see it.
And now that I have responded to you, would you consider responding to the Reverend Wright issue? I consider you one of the more reasoned Obama supporters and would truly be interested in your take. Please keep in mind I am not saying anything about Wright's support of Obama. I am asking about Obama's support of Wright. I have aleady gotten one response (and only one) from an Obama supporter who agrees with Reverend Wright. Fine. If Obama would say that then at least we could evaluate his position honestly. But to say that he disagrees with "some" things Wright says without being specific, and then to call him his mentor and support the church for 20 years suggests to me more agreement than Obama seems willing to admit to. Would you care to comment on the circulating video, whether you think Reverend Wright is accurate in his assertions, and if you disagree, why do you think Sen. Obama has been so attracted to Wright's message? Thanks.
-
There's a really good article on this at Slate
It's called, "Ferraro's comments about Obama were racist. Why can't we say that?"
http://www.slate.com/id/2186553
It's interesting and goes into the new dichotomy that now exists of any time someone says anything blatanly racist they stand up and decry, "I am not a racist" and everyone has to kind of agree with them.
She cites Michael Richards as another example of someone who literally stood up in a crowded theater and yelled "n****r, n****r, n****r, over and over again and was allowed to skate on the excuse they were not a racist. She also talked about Dog Chapman
She's right apparently harboring downright racist views is no longer enough to be called a racist. Apparently you have to be a skinhead and have tattoos. Otherwise no one is actually a racist any more, regardless of just how many racist views they might be dumb enough to hold.
-
No She Doesn't Have to Apologize!
What she said, unartfully, is exactly what was said in a current Atlantic Monthly article on Obama: his "brown face" (that's a quote) would show a young man in Pakistan that something was very different now in American politics. Are you going to ask for an apology from The Atlantic Monthly? Get real and get over discussions of race unless you only want Obama to have dibs on it.
That's especially the case now that his church's minister is being seen and heard. Could it be that Obama doesn't vote with his feet like most of us do and leave a church if he disagrees with what is coming from the pulpit? Rather, his church is "code" to his black constituency that, regardless of what he says on the stump, he's "black enough?" No one stays at a church for 20 years, gets married there, and has his children baptized there unless he agrees with what is being said. There are many fine African-American churches in Chicago whose pastors don't spew this kind of venom. What would Martin Luther King say?
This also gives context to Michelle Obama's otherwise puzzling comments about not having been proud of being an American until her husband's candidacy.
Remember Bush's oblique reference to the Dred Scott decision in a debate with Kerry in 2004? Most of didn't get it. But Bush's religious base did: "Dred Scott" was code for Roe v. Wade and Bush was saying he would appoint Supreme Court judges to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Obama's church may be code for his true feelings about being black in America. He has a lot of real explaining to do and not just dodging around his mentor, Rev. Wright.