Letters to the Editor
-
KStone
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’m paying attention – I just flat out disagree with you. I’d be willing to cut Hillary some slack if this was just an isolated incident. But over the course of the campaign, she and her husband and surrogates have made such a habit of invoking race as a rationale for her nomination that I no longer believe this stuff is an accident.
For the record, I don’t believe the Clintons are racists, but I do believe they’re trying to send the message that Obama may be unelectable because of his race and it’s become less subtle as Hillary’s become more desperate. In other words, they are willing to exploit race divisions for political gain.
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.
My problem isn’t with the idea that some black voters support Obama because of his race.
Where we disagree is your insistence that the 50-point swing among blacks that Obama’s enjoyed since October is entirely because he’s now seen as a viable candidate. I’d buy that if he were carrying 75% of the vote. But when Hillary Clinton, the wife of a recent former president who was absolutely revered by African Americans, is getting clobbered by 92% of the black vote in a state where blacks are 40% of the Dem electorate, I think there’s something else going on. I think it’s the condescending way Hillary and Bill have treated black voters.
My other problem is that you only question the motives of Obama’s black voters. What about Hillary’s white and female supporters? Obama loses 70-30 among working class whites, and the MSM and Hillary camp repeatedly question his appeal to those folks like you blame the voters.
In other words, you blame Obama for failing to appeal to working class whites but you blame blacks for failing to embrace Hillary.
Why?
-
Losing isn't noble
Senator Clinton has lost or will lose to be specific the popular vote and the pledged delegate count.
Her entire argument is that elections don't matter and she should be crowned the Nominee because of her supporters demographics.
That's it. That's her argument.
First, the pledged delegate count is arrived at through an undemocratic process that includes caucuses which discriminate against the poor, elderly and disabled.
She doesn't say elections don't matter, she says exactly what the Democratic party rules say: the delegates matter if someone reaches the 2025.
The candidates are essentially dead even in Democratic support. The one with extra votes gained in caucuses in Idaho, who wants to eliminated millions of votes in two huge swing states, should not be awarded the nomination.
In a stalemate, which we have, electability is paramount. If one candidate was blowing the other one away in pledged and popular count, that would be another story and another race.
Do you think the process should award the nomination to the pledged delegate leader, including caucuses, and eliminate the check it has in place (superdelegates) to avoid nominating a weak, marginalized LOSING candidate?
If you do you simply like to lose and that doesn't help causes you purport to believe in.
-
KStone
Scuse me:
When Hillary beats Obama 70-30 among working class whites, folks like you question why Obama can't "close the deal" with these voters.
When Obama beats Hillary 90-10 among blacks, you blame black voters for failing to embrace Hillary.
In other words, you treat the black voter like some monolithic fringe group and discount Obama's appeal on the basis of race.
Cheers.
-
lolcait
I've given up arguing with your kind. I'm just relishing Hillary Clinton's public humiliation and looking forward to laughing my ass off at you when the party finally shows her the door.
And no, I really don't give a shit who you vote for.
-
Obamapathology
I'm just relishing Hillary Clinton's public humiliation and looking forward to laughing my ass off at you when the party finally shows her the door.
Of course you are.
-
lolcait
Indeed I am. It's satisfying in a train wreck sort of way to watch a candidate with such a mammoth sense of entitlement get roundly rejected by voters and then embarrass herself on the way out the door. I live in Pennsylvania and I felt the same way in the waning days of Sen. Santorum when he realized he'd been beaten and spent days sputtering about media bias and Casey "ducking" him in debates. After the campaign she's run it's hard not to feel a little schadenfreude watching Hillary lose.
-
Hillary's poor choice of words
Dear Mr. Conason,
I too was taken aback by Senator Clinton's remarks when I heard them played back on the Daily Show the other night. Like you, I do not believe she meant any insult. In my opinion, was simply stumbling in her attempt to prop up her argument for her continuing candidacy. I think this thesis is supported by repetition of the word "working".
If I may speculate freely, it seems to me that she initially was trying to describe her favored demographic (white working class voters) simply as working class, added the hard adjective, then decided she had to add the white adjective to be accurate. If you replace her line with "white working class Americans" it becomes far less offensive. I would not be surprised if she was quite tired when this occurred.
I must emphasize, however, that above is only to excuse her motives, not the unintended message that she sent out, which , as you say, has a Wallace like echo to it.
A final thought. You may get some Hillary defenders writing to you, who are dismissive if not contemptuous of your argument. I hope you will excuse their fervor given their understandable disappointment in the fate of their candidate.
Keep up the good work,
Sean C. Fisher