Letters to the Editor
-
@weeping
HRC still has a chance at the nomination, if not the Presidency, then the Vice Presidency. Moreover, she still has half the Dems in her corner and a thousand SDs, more than Jesse Jackson ever had in 1988. He had more than a few verbal slips of the tongue too. (remember the "Hymietown" remark?)
However, nobody ever told Jackson "to go home" or say "HE'S LOST! Who does he think he is, still campaigning? That's ENTITLEMENT!" On the contrary, (in my corner of the Dem party anyway) he was admired for his toughness and his willingness to take his issues to the convention floor to get his political goals accomplished.
But of course, he was a man. The standards are different for women.
-
@Blue Jean
You Hillary voters are OLD, USELESS, STUPID bigots who should die as soon as possible so the cleaner, purer, younger generation can take over. Forget any reason you have for possibly rejecting Obama, like his lack of experience, lack of record, lack of policy specifics, etc; the only reason you're voting against him is because you're a racist. Oh, and if Barry loses to McCain for whatever reason, then it's your fault, and we hope you burn in Hell.
I believe this is called "reductionism." Or is it a "straw-man." Well, whatever. What you say here is nothing anyone on salon has articulated, most especially in this thread of letters. I don't see it anywhere in the original article either. So you kind of put up this outrageous bile against Hillary and staunchly reject it. Kind of reminds me of when Stephen Colbert debates himself.
-
Stop looking for racism where there is none
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.
-
The standards are different for women?
You mean like when the calls for Huckabee came out?
Try googling 'huckabee drop out'.
-
George Wallace
I once read a bio of George Wallace that said he wasn't especially racist, that as a young lawyer he even represented working poor black folks against more powerful interests (Wallace himself grew up very poor).
He ran once for Governor on a populist but recially moderate platform, but lost. Then he turned on the barnburner race rhetoric and a star was born. He later recanted.
It's a shame that his populism was so darned selective. Doesn't seem productive, and it doesn't seem right.
White aristocrats in the really Old South used racist ideology to divide black slaves and white indentured servants who might see common interests.
There's a better direction to be moving in, right?
-
I don't care if Hillary's channeling Chuck E. Cheese
The woman is a destructively divisive walking disease.
-
AKA, we've conceded that and moved on
but you're not seeing the forest for the trees.
She shouldn't be talking about demographics at all because it's divisive and not really about her message--no electability arguments are, nor are electibility arguments if you prefer that spelling, but most especially because she's toast and that talk only serves to divide an electorate that needs to be persuaded over to Obama's camp. Now you're caught up.
-
@ Blue Jean
Not sure quite what to say.
What's your basic point, that Clinton is on a crusade?
I respect crusades, I did, after all, campaign for Nader in 2000.
Is your argument that she's on a Crusade?
Because I could respect that, if that were the case.
If you want to argue that she's doing something that urgently needs doing and that the consequences are worth paying (ends justify the means) then I'm all ears: How would you characterize her crusade?
What is she fighting for that Obama is not fighting for, vis a vis the demographic she is apparently crusading for?
-
@lateagain
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!
-
To Veronica in CA and lolcait and others who have tried to point out that Clinton was merely trying to be specific:
Give it up. These Obama supporters want to see her as racist. Or if they are now backing off racist, they still want to see her as cynically using race. Moreover, they enjoy painting all Clinton supporters as racist or as enjoying white privilege. I suggest that we just surrender trying to persuade them. It is now official. Obama supporters don't want anyone they might possibly suspect as harboring any racism -- any taint is unacceptable -- and they have tried to claim all Clinton supporters must have some racism (or whatever word weeping for brunnhilde is calling it these days), so there is only one solution. Obama cannot be tainted! Therefore no Clinton supporter, or anyone who has seriously thought of supporting Clinton, or who even thinks Clinton is not a racist, or who just plain likes Clinton should ever, ever shift their votes to Obama. To do so would sully his purity. He must not be compromised by the support of anyone who has ever enjoyed a shred of white privilege.