Letters to the Editor
-
No offense
This is a stupid article.
I support Obama but really, who cares what she said? Misspeaking? Perhaps. Freudian slip? Maybe.
Bottom line: Is Hillary a racist? No.
This annoys me as much as trying to label Obama a racist because of his pastor or an elitist because he misspoke.
Let's give all this hyper-parsing a rest, eh?
-
Clarification, please
Over the past several months they have found themselves standing against the ambitions and talents of the first black American who could become president. In a situation that demanded sensitivity and caution, both they and their associates have too often spoken and acted carelessly. That the same charge can plausibly be made against the Obama camp does not absolve them.
Joe, what did you mean by that last sentence, exactly? Are you implying that the Obama campaign intentionally or inadvertently used sexist language during their campaign against the first legitimate female candidate for president? Or are you saying that the Obama campaign played the race card and unfairly painted the Clintons as bigots? Neither rings true for me, so I'd appreciate some clarification.
-
Hillary's exploitation of race?? You must be joking.
I thought it was the Barrack Dukakis campaign that started the race-baiting to win South Carolina and that we'd established conclusively that was there plan all along? I mean YOU did some investigative reporting into that didn't you, Joe?
And I thought it was AA's who damned the torpedos were lock-step voting for their half-black icon (despite the fact he'd never done a damned thing for his black constituents in his entire political history).
So now this is Hillary's fault, Joe? C'mon. Don't take the bait. We all know what happened.
And it shocks me to find that for the first time in my entire life I may be voting for a Republican President. Don't know if I can stomach it yet, but I sure know I can't stomach that arrogant bag of gas the left has been peddling.
-
Was she dog-whistling to the voters of Kentucky and West Virginia?
You bet she was, Joe. Except it wasn't a dog whistle -- it was an air raid siren and it's been blaring for quite a while. Amazed you finally heard it over the noise of your pal Sidney Blumenthal yammering on about Rev. Wright, Bittergate, and Obama being a Muslim and all.
-
I'm an Obama supporter
... and I've been picking Hillary apart for months, but I think she just misspoke. The juxtaposition was unfortunate, but I don't think she was trying to say that white folks are hard working and black folks aren't. You'd have to be incredibly cynical to assert that's what she meant.
I seriously doubt Barack Obama would assert that that's what she meant.
More than anything, now's the time to be coming together. The nit-pickery over misstatements and other distractions from the real issues should be over. Like yesterday.
-
Leave it up to Joe
Leave it up to Joe to write a column critical of Hillary Clinton that gives her the benefit of the doubt at every turn. Hillary and Bill Clinton do not make slips of the toungue or bad choices in the way they express "innocent" thoughts. Neither does Barack Obama, for that matter. The Clintons know exactly what they are saying and how it will be perceived. As for Bill Clinton being some great champion of African-Americans because he is not a racist, that is not saying much.
-
No Racist
HRC is no racist. Neither is her husband.
But there's no doubt that they've tried to portray BHO as the black candidate, instead of a candidate who was black. They've pushed to marginalize him, to put him and his supporters on the periphery as much as possible.
That's okay, I guess, even though it's not a road I like to see people take. It's politics. It's better than Willie Horton, some at least.
But let's not fool ourselves about this tactic. Let's not try to say that it never happened, that it was ham-handedness in two of the most savvy politicians in the last two decades. These two don't make these kinds of mistakes.
Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence; three times is enemy action. Arguably, the dog whistle (exactly what it is, but c'mon, it's just politics) is the third time.
The pattern has been established. But it's just politics.
HRC is no racist. But neither will she be the Democratic candidate for the president of the United States. And those who would condemn Iraq to a hundred of years of war by voting for McCain, because their chosen one has lost? It's okay if you vote for more death. It's just politics, after all.
-
NIxon Was Smarter
Tricky Dicky used the strategy without uttering something as cosmically stupid as "hard working Americans, white Americans". She sounds like David Duke. I know she's not a racist, by any definition, nor is Big Bill with The Big One, but they are Machiavellian to core. She'll say anything to peel away some super delegates. Anything. Imagine what they say in private. Disgusting.
-
Racial animus
Conason writes:
"The tragedy is that neither Clinton carries even the slightest racial animus, as their many African-American friends and colleagues would testify..."
First of all, I'm not sure why it matters in the slightest whether or not the Clintons harbor "racial animus."
This is the entire point about why racism is so insidious: It doesn't matter where one's heart is. At least, not ultimately.
What ultimately matters is how one reinforces and replicates social patterns of racism. When Clinton says, "Farakkhan, Farakkhan, Farakkhan," this is what she's doing, whatever is in her heart.
And what's more, if she is as smart as people give her credit for, she knows this. Or perhaps her knowledge of racism is outdated as she relies upon decades-old understandings of what racism is all about. Either way, what's in her heart is really neither here nor there. Her replication of racist patterns, wittingly or not, is what matters.
Conason also writes:
"So the Clintons probably understand the essential evil of racism better than most white politicians.
Unless I'm misunderstanding Conason's point about the Clintons' political troubles, all this anecdote demonstrates is that the Clintons understand the political ramifications of racism. Not sure if that's the same as understanding "the essential evil" of racism.
More than most white politicians?
Perhaps, but if that's the best white politicians can do, God help us all. (Ftr, I don't think it is.)
"They have certainly done more than most of today's white politicians to combat that evil. That is why, as they contemplate the conclusion of this campaign, they deserve better from themselves than to encourage doubt about their decency and character."
Again, the real question is whether they've aptly diagnosed the problem of "racism" and offered consequential redress.
I don't have the answer for that, but I'd warn anyone from answering this question before seriously deliberating over all the metrics involved.
They may same self-evident, but as Clinton is demonstrating, one can work against racism before one works for it.
I guess my basic question is why we (Joe) are surprised, as if there's some paradox demanding resolution.
I think a person who really understands racism recognizes there is no paradox.
Until there is universal recognition of this basic fact, we will continue to talk past one another arguing about who is and is not a racist, as if the answer involves some mystical penetration of a person's heart or cold assessment of their deeds.
The reality is we are all racists, in a very profound sense, inasmuch as we struggle with its legacy.
Basically, I think Conason's whole article rests on a false premise, and one that serves to perpetuate unproductive binary thinking on the subject of racism.