Letters to the Editor
-
@ Taliesan
My decision was not made on the spur of the moment. Obama (and his supporters) have been losing me all along.
1. I don't believe Hillary Clinton meant her remarks about MLK, JFK, and LBJ to be racist. I don't think people should be punished for saying something that reflects historical realisty.
2. The Obama campaign's race baiting began there.
3. I knew that Edwards had been disadvantaged because of slurs -- completely unjustified about racism. It seemed to me that a pattern was emerging.
4. The Obama campaign memo emerged about how they intended to use charges of racism against the Clintons.
5. I have never seen a more vicious online campaign or more viscious campaign of foul, sexist, racist, and sheer innuendo digging up old Republican talking points than was deployed against the Clintons in comment threads here, at Huffington, The Politico, and TPM, but those comments were really at the encouragement of the blogs themselves and the MSM. It is Obama's "fans" who are the herd.
6. Given how the Clintons have been treated, I don't think much of anything that they do to defeat Obama is beyond the pale. (There is no such phrase as beyond the pail.)
7. I don't think we should choose a president based upon either gender or color, whether that gender be male or female, whether that color be black, white, or brown.
8. Obama will likely be the Democratic nominee largely because he is black. That is no more acceptable than selecting the nominee because he is white. Both outcomes are racist.
9. I don't want to be a participant in that sort of injustice.
And now, I will say no more to you.
-
AKA Smith
1: Other people see it differently, particularly considering those comments by Bill, Ferraro and recently, Hillary Clinton.
2: Or they simply criticised her on her choice of words.
3: Actually, Edwards was disadvantaged by having none of the party machinery behind him and very limited press coverage. When he came second in the first race of the season - Hillary was still the one to beat.
4: And Hillary's campaign allegedly released a photo of Obama in traditional Kenyan dress.
5: Go back and read Texas Girl's comment on this thread. Tell me again how particularly vicious and bigotted the Obama campaign has been.
6: Bad punning is a valid form of expression. Besides that, Hillary hasn't been particularly roughly treated in this cycle, most of the damage done was done by her to herself.
7: Agreed but...
8: You wonder why Obama supporters might just call you racist for that statement? When has being black ever helped an American presidential candidate? Are you seriously going to continue to pretend that all Obama has going for him is his race?
9: You mean the horrible injustice where America's people vote for the person they prefer, and argue passionately in favour of that candidate online? Terrible thing this Democracy innit?
-
One in a row...where's the "pattern"?
I'm very disappointed in the direction of Joe's recent Hillary articles. Here, Conason says that "a pattern" of racist remarks is emerging with Clinton. He then proceeds to debunk all the prior accusations of racism. So there is no pattern...even if you concede, which I do not, that her current statement was insensitive or whatever...it's the first such remark to give Conason pause. So where is the pattern, except for the pattern of baseless accusations? Say it ain't so, Joe.
-
@everyone
You always miss the point. Always.
Also, FYI, Hispanics came out in droves to vote for Hillary. EVERYone who knows knows the vote will swing for McCain or noone if Obama is the choice.
Here is the truth: more black americans than any other sub-group are on some form of assistance. hispanics, for the most part, do not want assistance. politicians use these known demographics when plotting agendas. stupid people ignore these when using race to decide how to vote.
And the Democrats are missing out on the Hispanic vote in this futile attempt to look progressive. Instead, they look stupid and they are being both racist and sexist and just plain dumb. They are driving away Hispanics and woman for blacks, and in the business world this would be considered a loser move. Demographically speaking of course....
-
So said the pundits....
The MSM has been talking about the same thing for weeks. And the O-team keeps saying that he "owns" the AA vote. But don't let the chick speak the truth fer-Chrissakes.
-
@AKA Smith
AKA Smith: "1. I don't believe Hillary Clinton meant her remarks about MLK, JFK, and LBJ to be racist. I don't think people should be punished for saying something that reflects historical realisty."
Most people acknowledge she didn't mean those remarks to be racist. But they were misinterpretable enough to be tactless. They were also part of a very tense series of exchanges between herself and Obama, when she was criticizing Obama for offering people "false hope," etc. You might have forgotten, but part of what set off people's ire was Francine Torge's introduction of Clinton (which Clinton didn't respond negatively to): "Some people compare one of the other candidates to John F. Kennedy. But he was assassinated. And Lyndon Baines Johnson was the one who actually [passed the civil rights legislation]." You can't deny that that's pretty crappy.
AKA Smith: "2. The Obama campaign's race baiting began there."
Please show some evidence that the Obama campaign was behind any of the immediate negative reaction to Clinton's comments. I recall that Obama himself did not say he thought Clinton was being racist, but only that her comments were "ill-advised."
AKA Smith: "4. The Obama campaign memo emerged about how they intended to use charges of racism against the Clintons."
We've been over this. Here's the scoop: The memo was from a low-level staffer in the South Carolina campaign office in response to a request from a single journalist for examples of racism against Obama. It did not come from the central campaign, which disavowed the memo as soon as it became known to them.
Here's what David Axelrod said: "This is a compendium of quotes from newspapers that was provided on request from a low-level staffer in South Carolina who probably thought she was being responsive to an inquiry."
You can disbelieve this, but I think the sloppy nature of the memo speaks for itself when compared to the professionalism of the main Obama campaign. Here is more information:
• initial report on the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html
• Washinton Post's 'The Trail': Obama disavows memo:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/15/about_that_sc_memo.html
(Obama: "It is my responsibility to make sure that we're setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues.")
• Politico's coverage of the memo:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/The_Obama_race_memo.html
In response to the memo, "[Obama] made it very clear to the managers of the campaign that he was unhappy, and to make sure everyone understood, and that it wasn’t good enough ... that it came at a very low level in the campaign. The word had to spread from top to bottom.”
Obama also said he would fire anybody who made personal attacks against Clinton. Then Samantha Power called Clinton a "monster," and guess what? Obama fired her.
AKA Smith: "5. I have never seen a more vicious online campaign or more viscious campaign of foul, sexist, racist, and sheer innuendo digging up old Republican talking points than was deployed against the Clintons in comment threads here, at Huffington, The Politico, and TPM, but those comments were really at the encouragement of the blogs themselves and the MSM. It is Obama's "fans" who are the herd."
You're exaggerating mightily. Most of the web sites you've listed above have stayed respectable, from what I've seen, and they haven't shied from reporting on things that cast Obama in an unfavorable light. The commenters are another story, of course, and I don't frequent those sites often enough to know what to say about them. I think Salon's comments section has shown a full spectrum of styles and approaches on both sides, as has the media. Nobody will deny that the MSM has been sexist toward Clinton at times, but then again, there are examples of racism too.
AKA Smith: "6. Given how the Clintons have been treated, I don't think much of anything that they do to defeat Obama is beyond the pale. (There is no such phrase as beyond the pail.)"
Really? So the very principles you claim Obama's group have violated no longer matter to you?
AKA Smith: "7. I don't think we should choose a president based upon either gender or color, whether that gender be male or female, whether that color be black, white, or brown."
I agree. But I have seen other Clinton supporters suggest that women should vote for Hillary simply because of her gender, and that women who didn't vote for Hillary were betraying women. Just for the record.
AKA Smith: "8. Obama will likely be the Democratic nominee largely because he is black. That is no more acceptable than selecting the nominee because he is white. Both outcomes are racist."
Hello, Geraldine! I dunno, plenty of white people voted for Obama. How did he win in Iowa? How did he win or at least get a high turnout in other states with relatively low percentages of blacks? It couldn't have anything to do with people liking things about him other than his skin, could it?
AKA Smith: "9. I don't want to be a participant in that sort of injustice."
Then don't participate. Stay home. You're entitled to. Maybe you can take up macrame.