Letters to the Editor
-
religious votes...group behavior
Every candidate makes those efforts.
Still that could help determine a lot of coming results in close races...
-
JackHughs, respectfully...You made me smile and think...
The MSPress stink. If a candidate used boyhood names:
Blackie, Whitey, Reds, or Puddintame...gads.
Who cares. Vote for the one who has decency.
The demented media will distort and grumble?
Who can trust any one who is chewing bubble gum?
I get seasick watching them blab on shows such as,
Meet The Press? yuck.
The GOP candidates can pop-pink-gum on their masked face?
The "news" is despicable. It's like picking gum off noses?
I vote we depose the disposable politico's. At dinner time they probably leave wrigley chewing gum on their plate.
-
eastriver
Why is someone bringing up the subject of race a racist? In the context that Bill raised the subject, he was merely being pragmatic.
The odds of the Clintons being racist are about the same as Bush/Cheney being anti-oil industry.
Who said Bill Clinton was racist? It's quite possible for someone not to be racist at all but still exploit racial division for political gains.
Bill Clinton is a politician. It's his job to push, pull, shove, spin, and lobby for what he believes in. End of story.
Put away the fainting couch and smelling salts and stop clutching your pearls.
Politics is a contact sport.
So I assume you apply this same free-for-all attitude to Republicans? I'm sure you were giving these lectures when people were protesting the race-baiting strategies of the 1988 George H.W. Bush campaign, and the 2004 Swift Boat attacks.
Hey, this is politics. Anything goes. No standards. Quit whining. Was that what you were saying about those things, too?
-
Did you know that the black candidate is in fact black?
But Salon readers are ashamed and outraged that anyone would point that out. Of course the fact that Hillary has ovaries has been paying the bills at Salon for a year.
-
For those supporting Billary's tactics
Why is it that Bill Clinton let the media speculate more than a week before the election about how he was or wasn't injecting race into the campaign? And then the day of the election he blasts the media for bringing race into the SC campaign and says all he wanted to do was talk about the issues.
If he really objected to the media coverage, I would believe him if he made his case immediately after it started and said, I wasn't intending to do that instead of protesting when it was way too late. That to me shows he is only interested in winning at any cost. Hillary endorsed his tactics because she let him do it and remained quiet so I will do everything I can to help Obama (Edwards if he has a chance) be our Democratic candidate.
-
Daniel_28
This is plain and simple race baiting Glenn, and you should know better.
Absolutely, when the Clintons said that the Obama had become the "black candidate" and chose Jesse Jackson as the candidate to whom he should be compared, that had nothing to do with race at all. It's just me inventing all of this.
You didn't misquote Clinton, but you sure are taking some liberties in telling us how we are supposed to interpret his comments.
I didn't make any comments about how YOU are "supposed to interpret his comments." I wrote about how I interpreted his comments and why. Feel free to make up your own mind.
I hope you're not letting all the praise you're getting go to your head. I cannot help but recognize you getting bolder in telling people how they need to think.
That's ludicrous. What I write about here is called my opinion. I try to marshall facts and reasoning to support that opinion and make it as persuasive as possible. Any reader is free to agree or disagree with it. Trying to characterize that as "telling people how they need to think" is stupid.
-
Not So Blind Racism
For me it took one phrase in his 75 minute tribute to himself last night to turn my heretofore profound respect for Bill Clinton and his Global Initiative work on its head. You can’t really ‘get it’ in the print version; it takes listening to the dismissive, just-short-of-snide tone in which he delivered his remark about “(turning) our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard” on Super Tuesday – emphasis very much on the “millions.” So what exactly was he saying here? Hard to NOT hear it as meaning that the results of the hundreds of thousands of South Carolinian voters – the majority of whom were black – could be easily waved away as inconsequential, as not truly counting, as…well, a minority. Whew. That apparently works for Bill. It doesn’t work for me (and I’m white). In fact, it sounds like pretty naked racism and an exploitation of majority privilege.
The other thing that strikes me as ludicrous is that so many pundits, bloggers, journalists are characterizing the results as falling along racial lines because the majority of black but not white voters went for Obama. Truth is, there was no majority of white voters – there was a slight plurality for Clinton and Obama got a respectable 25%, including a striking trend toward young adult white voters going for Obama. The failure to see this as a progression towards a less racist electorate comes from the same resistance to a change in the status quo as Clinton’s remark does. It denies truth. Perhaps the most hopeful and dramatic dimension of the past political month in this country (that I’m beginning to think it actually might be OK to live in again) is the stunning divide between corporate-owned media (even MSNBC) predictions and the articulated will of the American people. I would actually encourage Obama to put less emphasis on the Hope for change he sees in us and more on the evidence of it his campaign is exposing “on this January night” in America.
-
So the authopsy confirms...
...that Clinton has others be critical, case in point her husband.
Yet nobody ever mentions 'the murder of Vince Foster' or the panoply of 'Clinton fatigue' that truly litters the landscape, or if they did it wouldn't be considered much different than the usual boilerplate and most likely not be thought of as Democrat directed...
equivolency?