Letters to the Editor
-
JOE CONASON must be nuts
Joe Conason, for completely mysterious reasons, succumbs to a completely absurd and spurious case against people I thought were his freinds, probably getting hustled and intimidated into doing it, by an increasingly ugly, vicious, ongoing and determined effort on the part of the Obama cult, to force, by sheer repetition, a big lie onto the electorte: namely that the Clinton's are racists.
This is, far and away, the most egregious treachery committed by the Obama campaign, and one of the few reasons why he has made the most powerful opposition to his campaign necessary and inevitable. In the course of his silly rant, near the end, Conason, makes the very same statement himself, remarking that her (Hillary's) "...chances of building an electoral college vote may well be better than his are, owing to his difficulty in attracting White working class voters(!)" Huh! That's all Hillary has been saying. How is it not racist for Conason to say this, but it is racist for Hillary to say it? How on earth can a candidate speak of her opponent's inability to secure votes in an important sector of the population, without identifying that sector? And, if that sector is identifiable only be race, what choices are left for the candidate? The candidate must choose, between suffering a loss of an important sector of voters, or be accused, completly unfairly and unjustly, of being racist.
-
Et tu, Joe?
The insertion of the phrase 'hard-working Americans' strikes me as just part of that political-speak that candidates use to suck up to voters. It's obvious to me that what she was going to say was 'working white Americans' only she awkwardly threw in 'hard-working' at the last second.
And the fact that Joe Conason can't see that breaks my heart.
-
@MikeLP
I see you're still easily confused. Do you really think it makes sense to falsely characterize what I wrote just a few posts back? In fact, I mentioned the Ferraro incident as an example of the Clinton camp giving the Obama camp ammunition. It's probably better to try that after a thread closes and everybody has moved on.
-
Hey Joe Conason, get a clue…
Others have, long before this latest HRC public turd dropping.
This from HuffPo over a month ago:
“Based on the Clinton campaign's new electoral math, black votes are actually worth less than white votes. The subtext, even while cloaked as "electoral strategy," is racist at its core.”
That’s what HuffPo said. That was also before the little nugget uttered yesterday in defense of HRC’s latest turd dropping by prominent HRC supporter/strategist, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:
"Senator Clinton continues to demonstrate that she has what it takes to win the Presidency ... while Senator Obama does well in areas and demographic groups that the Democratic nominee will win anyway."
Could you possibly be more insulting, dismissive and condescending to a core constituency than that? It's as though she and HRC think black folks are too stupid to understand what their clumsily coded words imply.
You’d also have to be completely clueless to not recognize this as a tactic defined by some megalomaniacal and potentially suicidal “political strategy”.
Wasserman-Schultz basically admitted it.
I’ve said this before; but it’s worth repeating:
Once again, HRC has overindulged at the Pander Buffet. It’s time to stop pretending that the toxic gases she vents after she’s eaten don’t stink.
-
New Yorkers deserve better leadership
As a New Yorker who has voted for Senator Clinton twice, I am extremely upset by her naked appeal to race when she warned that Obama was losing support among "white Americans". My children are of mixed race, and it saddens me deeply that their Senator would seek to gain support by dividing us rather than uniting us. Her New York constituents and other supporters must urge her to be a leader for all. What is ironic is that in Indiana Obama actually improved on his Pennsylvania performance with "white Americans".
— Eunice De La Cruz, New York
-
KStone
"In fact, I mentioned the Ferraro incident as an example of the Clinton camp giving the Obama camp ammunition."
This says nothing about Ferraro's comments, except that the Obama camp used them as "ammunition." Which of course plays into your belief that Obama is a race-baiter and blacks overwhelming support him only because he's black. Not that you've ever bothered to support these opinions with facts.
-
@debaser
Perhaps, but I suppose "two wrongs don't make a right" was easier for her to deal with rather than dealing with the aftermath of you rushing off to get you butt kicked by your sister yet again. : ) Anyhow, the snaps were a limited run. It's over.
-
"Hard working" has been used all along
The insertion of the phrase 'hard-working Americans' strikes me as just part of that political-speak that candidates use to suck up to voters. It's obvious to me that what she was going to say was 'working white Americans' only she awkwardly threw in 'hard-working' at the last second.
You're correct.
If you go back and look at Clinton's speeches and debate remarks, she always uses "hard working Americans" in place of "working class." For some reason she or her advisers have decided it works better.
In fact, I don't think she's ever used "working class" and when she uses "hard working" it stands out because it's always in an argument that any politically interested person would recognize was referencing the working class. So you notice it as political-speak.
Doesn't matter though. It's fun to score cheap points against the Clintons and even better when you get to call them RACISTS. The most fun of all is comparing them to George Wallace.
-
Clinton didn't Care
Clinton knew a black candidate would get a good percentage of the black vote. What she didn't expect was that he would be a viable candidate with an inspirational message who out organize her. That left her with a small percentage of the black vote as Obama's message of change is far more appealing to AA voters than Clinton's message of inevitability despite her husband's strong record with the black community.
It is what Clinton did next that is telling. Realizing the republican nomination was over she saw the opportunity to move right and pickup voters while thinking she could hold on to her existing supporters. She also clearly believes that by ignoring the black vote completely she could make even larger gains. Her thinking was obviously that with the nomination secured she could pick Obama as her vice president and all the black voters would come back to the fold.
You do not need to invoke racism to explain that strategy, just coldly calculated self-interest as opposed to any commitment to guiding principles. Lucky for us Clinton tested the limits of her supporters once too often and her support dropped off sharply with liberals, women and people younger than 65. It appears Clinton has triangulated her way from inevitability to irrelevancy.