Letters to the Editor
-
Also, Taliesan,
I also never called any woman a traitor for not supporting Clinton. You may search my archives and you will find that I did not.
-
Too generous...
I love you Joe but I think you're being too generous.
Regardless, the question is not whether they are racists (I agree with you that they probably are not)(though I wonder if there is a tinge of anger over the "ungratefulness" of those "negroes"), the question is whether they intentionally used race for political purposes.
To that I think the answer is probably yes.
-
One thing's for sure...
George Wallace would be proud of some of the nonsense posted here.
Black militant supporters?
Speach and critisism? (Although, interestingly, he was able to spell verboten correctly).
Sorry your candidate of choice lost. But she lost on her own merits, with her own actions and in her own words. Stop whining, and trying to blame somebody else (and look to your own selves if, as I suspect, you did nothing to help her beyond posting such ludicrous twaddle on the internet) for her failings.
Certainly, this ridiculous "monolithic black voting bloc" (which is somehow ruling and ruining the election) hysteria needs to end. It serves neither you nor your candidate any good. Unless you define good as painting yourself to be a racist, pantywaist sniveler.
-
How many Southern states can Obama compete in?
Answer: none.
Hill can win Fla and Ark. Omama wins zero Southern states.
Mccain is sending GOP oprative all accorss the South warning voters that Obama, if elected, will raise your taxes and give your money to the blacks. Obama is a muslim, and etc. If there is no dem answer this will move voters to McCain. Raceism in the South is not only a part of this election, it will decide the outcome.
The press will back McCain and his brand of raceism, while nailing dem attempts to deal with it. The press is allready doin this. That's what Clinton understands. McCain wins this election with the rasist vote. Shame on you Joe Conason.
jerry
-
Alec's Mom
"...The main problem with Hillary's logic is that older, blue collar white voters have a nasty habit of voting Republican. They are NOT as reliable as other groups. Furthermore, as Hillary's older, whiter demographic recedes in population, which it is doing now, younger and more diverse groups will dominate. To burn them, so to speak, would be to erode the party...."
Since Richard Nixon, I have never seen a group vote consistently against their interests [their southern antecedants, notwithstanding--ie those voting, locally and state-wide, Democratic, en masse, in the deep south, after Reconstruction and right up until the mid-sixties]. The late 20th century national GOP was against unionism and the "big government" [make that meaningful, functioning government] that northern big city and exurban grandfathers/mothers and fathers/mothers helped create by their participation in old-time, northern democratic political machines and continued to promulgate a war that, ironically-since Nixon was voted in to end it, resulted in an increase of the rate of death suffered, in great part, by their sons, fathers and brothers.
[now that those two tools of northern, ethnic, blue collar advancement have been pretty much dismantled by the GOP you've got Scranton, Wilkes-barre and, in my state, Poughkeepsie]
Why should anyone be surprised at a group that has, more often than not, been voting Republican based on one particular issue and several other diversionary ones, for the better part of a generation? Or--if you throw in many of the descendants of those Southern "antecedants"--that Hillary Clinton, loathe to acknowledge her inexcusable mistakes re campaign strategy and tactics, has sought, as a last resort, to take advantage of that particular situation?
The only comfort a Progressive can derive from all this is, as you've alluded, that in a generation that particular political demographic will have been considerably diminished as their off-spring appear to be possessed of a significantly more enlightened self-interest than it currently has shown.
-
The Art of Losing Graciously in a Single Endeavor
Hillary Clinton needs to climb a hill to get a better look at the forest below.
We all lose at something, an election, a divorce, a death in the family. Still, we move on.
So she must move on to claim the higher good - a worthy reputation, a peace among her fellow Democrats, a presidential victory in November for a fellow Democrat.
-
Good luck, because you need it!
Salon readers, that cornpone Evita will do anything to be elected, including standing in a schoolhouse door and making opportunistic remarks that would cause the late Governor Wallace to rise up from his grave and shout "Holy crap! Not even I am that vile!".
And this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. If she's elected, you'll see an All-American Fascism you could never have dreamed of. Cheney will look at Bush and exclaim "Shit! Why didn't WE think of that??".
Good luck to all of you! You need it!
-
Rocky57
I can say good things about Hillary too.
This race has been, from the start, a sensationalist's dream. Any criticism of either candidate is suddenly written off as being racist or sexist, whether it is or not, and any response to that is labeled as being playing the race or gender card whether it really is or not.
This latest statement by Hillary is undeniably racist. It is the latest in a trend of increasingly borderline statements - from the start where Hillary expressed a view on LBJ that was largely overdramatised, to when Bill's Jesse Jackson moment, to Ferraro trying to paint Obama as the affirmative action candidate to this one, where Hillary finally jumped the line.
The next step is probably going to be the Clintons dressing in white hoods. When that gets criticised it will be called playing the race card too.
There hasn't been the same degree of escalation with Obama, in part to be honest because he is winning, and it would lose him votes rather then winning him some. Obama is no saint.
Now I can't pretend that this side of the fight is blameless because we are not. A lot of the anger was generated by constantly being called various variations of stupid cultists - which left us thinking that the average Hillary supporter was in fact a stupid cultist.
And thus we started to shout back.
The young shouted back at the old "Screw you, you guys are the ones whose SUV's gave us global warming, you guys are the ones who want to leave us with the debt, you guys are the ones who landed us in two wars you expect US to fight. Some responsibility!" and the black vote shouted at the blue collar white vote "Well if you don't want us to vote for you, we can give you your wish honky!" and things descended into a vicious cycle.
Obviously, a Hillary supporter will say that the Obama supporters started this flame war so don't take my word on this as gospel.
But that said, when one side goes to the other side with this whole "You naaasssty DemocRAT" it tends to annoy me just a wee bit. There has been an awful lot of divisiveness in this election.