Letters to the Editor
-
@ lolcait
I understand the point you're making but I remain unconvinced.
We're clearly talking past one another, so there's nowhere to go from here.
The only way this exchange could possibly be productive is to break away from the binary. I'm not arguing that Clinton is or is not a racist, so your evidence is being used to support a claim I'm saying is beside the point.
There's logos and there's mythos and while your argument might be plausible if we were only talking about logos, my point is that mythos counts too and the very fact that Clinton is even thinking in those terms is the point.
As I say, I think we're talking past one another.
-
The real question is...
Why has Hillary failed to clarify her comments and reject the implication of her phrasing? You'd think a woman with her supposed political savvy would immediately say "I misspoke. I would never imply that African Americans or Latino Americans or any non-white Americans are not hard working. I was simply referring to rural white Americans specifically, who Senator Obama has clearly had difficulty with and are vital to any winning coalition."
In short, if she truly misspoke, why won't she speak up and say so?
I think we can guess the answer.
Savvy politician indeed...
-
aw
You guys are cracking me up! Thanks, everyone, for the kind words and no need to close your eyes, lateagain, of course I have a sense of humor. :)
It's true, though, the angry black man thing. Hey, we all have our cross to bear.
-
Realistic Choices in an Imperfect Consensus
What in the name of the children of the popes are you talking about Conason?
Equating Wallace with Clinton because she makes a reference to the proclivities of the white working class to compete with black Americans, yes, and to discredit them. Maybe the Clintons invented racism too. (They're a dynasty, you know.) And if I got your argument right: this is exploiting racial divisions and is a bad omen for the masters of Democratic politics until now.
You call this "reckless exploitation?" Maybe she should have said, "I'm white, he's black you know what that means." How about: "all you bigoted white autoworkers, come to my rescue." Or maybe she should go "beyond exploitative" and invoke George Wallace's name herself instead of having you do it for her.
I'm not sure your rules apply as much as you think they still do Joe. I think what's happened is the old labor coalition has broken down. I think a lot of middle class voters of her generation voted for her too. This is hardly "reckless expoitation" even if it sounds good if you want to discredit someone in liberal circles.
I'm going with the Obama thing, don't get me wrong, but it's been a damn shame to see the work they've done put to waste. Obama is a phenomenon--just like the anti-war movement was. The Clintons locked into the "old party" because the sixties disillusionment prevented anything new from emerging.
When are you going to start to talk about how it all started, and how it got to this state--how the children of the "children" of the 60's have now picked up the ball--and so far are running with it. Either you don't know the truth yet, or are simply denying it to make another case.
If you don't say it's a shame to see the Clintons go you're not giving credit where credit is due. It shows a lack of compassion. Liberalism has had a rough time. The Clintons didn't invent what happened. They ran with it becuase there was nobody else around up to the task.
-
She didn't misspeak, the remarks were misinterpreted then misreported
She's not saying she misspoke because she didn't misspeak.
She spoke in clear English and was misinterpreted by people who allowed the Drudge Report to interpret some ordinary dry demographic comments as racist.
An open minded and sane listen and read would have led any intelligent person to interpret them correctly.
Instead, they are being interpreted in a way that would only make logical sense if they were uttered by a KKK Grand Wizard.
Enough already.
-
You are REALLY reaching, here--this is shameless
Obama supporters claimed a few days ago that Clinton should stop talking about her advantage with "working class voters" because Barack Obama won "working class African-American voters." So, today, she added "white" in order to address those Obama supporters' concerns.
NOW, you write an article like this. Exactly what is she supposed to do? IGNORE her advantage amongst impoverished people in this country? The point is, lower income people are voting for HER. African-American people, whether impoverished or not, are voting for HIM. This is a fact. Pundits have been saying for months that Obama gets the African-American vote. Isn't that, by your same standard, "racist"???
If you think that's racist, you REALLY need to educate yourself about what racism is and isn't. Don't use such a powerful word in such a diminishing way.
Racism: prejudice and discrimination based on race.
-
Neat trick
NOW, you write an article like this. Exactly what is she supposed to do?
It doesn't matter. If she includes "whites" she's dog whistling to whitey that she's white like them. If she excludes "whites" she's saying only whites are hardworking.
Neat how the Obama race card players do that, isn't it? Helps to have a media that promotes their disgusting race card playing too.
-
@ Veronica
"Racism: prejudice and discrimination based on race."
By all means educate us. As Bartlett said in that debate against the Republican, what's the next sentence?
We're all ears...
-
@locait
The neat trick is taking criticism for someone's clumsy remarks and calling that criticism racist. Joe even gives her the benefit of the doubt, sort of, and tries to tie in some historical perspective. The other neat thing is conflating this article and some comments of Obama supporters into an Obama masterminded race baiting scheme. Obama didn't say the words, she did. They're hers to own or disown...
I am an Obama supporter, and I know you consider me a racist because of that. I do think this has gotten a little silly though, and you may be surprised that I (and a lot of others) agree with you that it is over the top to consider her words an ugly racist smear, or bait, or anything other than clumsy spin on demographics. Clumsy because she said "hard working", not because she said white. After the election on Tuesday the media was obsessed with the same racial demographics, and nobody is calling them outright racists.
So again, the demographics (ugly generalizations that they are) aren't the issue. The association of white and "hard working" along with "not completed college" and hard working are the problems. Sort of like saying "bitter" and "clinging" was a problem for BO, even though he was substantively (in context) correct.