Letters to the Editor
-
I predict Salon will apologize
Here's my deal. If Clinton comes out by Monday (generous, I know, but it's a weekend) with an apology and/or clarification, I will happily let the issue drop. (I'll still disagree with her point, but better that she be wrong than wrong AND a race-baiter.)
If not, then it is fair game, and she deserves to be ridiculed.
Is that fair? Any thoughts?
Why should she apologize for your stupidity or dishonesty?
The comments were neither racist nor ambiguous.
Only with bad faith can they can be presented the way they have been by you Obamapaths.
I predict Salon will apologize for this one.
-
so far there's been no harm - so no blame
if there IS harm (McCain becomes president), there WILL BE blame apportioned. and it will fall largely on the Clinton duo. why won't it fall on Obama? after all, McGovern bore his own blame! because the young are for obama - and history is on their side. american history WILL be non-racial and non-sexual. so whatever the clintons say from this point on, it can only redound badly - they'd best watch their dual tongues. however i can't wrap it up better than sam_he_is, "Clinton has triangulated her way from inevitability to irrelevancy". funny how that happened (this time).
-
Don't be surprised...
"...As a resident of New York, I was dismayed when Hillary ran for the Senate in 2000, because it was clearly only about her wanting to be president eventually...."
She'll be challenged in the primary by an opportunistic opponent who'll sense that she'll be vulnerable with key demographics, in NYS. Don't be surprised if she's weakened by a surprisingly strong intra-party opposition....and loses in either the primary, or the general election.
-
the black elephant in the room
Hillary Clinton didn't invent racial division and not talking about it won't make it go away. The media and Obama's supporters want her to get out of the way because she's a threat to the rockstar Obama. The media want him there because they believe they can destroy him for the right and the supporters want him to win the Presidency because they want to draw a definitive line under the Bush years. Not to talk about race and to pretend it doesn't matter doesn't make you virtuous, it makes you a hypocrite. She was simply stating a demographic fact but the Republicans will, of course, genuinely exploit racial division for all it's worth if Obama's the candidate in the general election. And don't think it won't work. The Clintons already have their tragic legacy - one of America's best Presidents dragged through the mud by the rabid right and their media proxies. They threw Monica Lewinski AND the kitchen sink at him and he was still re-elected. The right could forgive him for everything else, but not for being re-elected. To try to claim that Hillary Clinton and George Wallace have anything in common is a disgraceful lie and the question mark on the end of the sentence not only doesn't cover the deceit but shows the depths commentators will descend to over politics. But the Clintons already know all about that.
-
David Sugarman
"...if there IS harm (McCain becomes president), there WILL BE blame apportioned. and it will fall largely on the Clinton duo..."
This is clearly why it's insane to proceed as they have. They're not getting the nomination and if they think that Obama will be blamed for having lost, in November, they've got to let me have what they've been smoking. Just as Hillary was tone-deaf to what her war resolution vote meant to the anti-war core of her party, her clumsy race-baiting is equally clueless to how it will play with the cadre left and the movers and shakers of the Democratic party. Working class, ethic northern whites haven't been with the Party since Reagan, and their southern counterparts dating from the time Hill's fav, Barry Goldwater, ran in 1964, so it won't be as if they'll be able to rescue her, in 2012, from a backlash against the Clintons should Obama lose in November.
Any attempt to parallel an Obama loss to McGovern's '72 debacle won't work due to the incendiary nature of this campaign. A situation largely due to the Clintons. McGovern faced no such divisive, long-term opponent [the execrable George Wallace doesn't count, as he was gunned down early in that year's campaign].
-
@MikeLP
"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."
You really need to pay attention. I said the Obama camp and supporters are using repetitively echoed charges of race baiting against the Clinton camp which, are usually based on flimsy facts and strained interpretations, in order to turn the charge into the "fact" of Clinton race baiting. I then said they did this sometimes poorly, as in the JJ Jr case, and sometimes the Clinton camp gave them ammunition as in the Ferraro incident. The latter part meant that the Clinton camp gave them a legit reason to make the charge in that instance but I stand by my opinion that overall it's nonsense.
Now in terms of blacks overwhelming support of Obama based on racial pride (what you called because he's only black), if consistent 90+% totals are not proof enough then that's your issue. For some reason, a lot of people here run away from that as if it's a bad thing and gyrate themselves all sorts of ways to avoid the truth. I guess they have to maintain some sort of intellectual pose so, they deluge us with stuff about his "progressive agenda" (lol) or "inspirational leadership" and that's all bs.
What's driving his 90+% support is the desire to be part of the first black candidate's running for POTUS who has a good shot at winning and the symbolic value inherent in that and it's really not some sort of secret at all. Among "regular hard working black folks" (heh), it's talked about openly and in no uncertain terms.
The rub is that the problem is not with them it's with people who think that's a problem. As I have repeatedly pointed out, blacks have voted for white Dems in overwhelming fashion for generations so when they get a chance to vote for a viable black candidate, and do so overwhelmingly, NOW there's a problem with a monolitic black Dem vote when it's turned toward the black guy who has a good shot at winning? Please.