Letters to the Editor
-
One down...
BREAKING: Hillary Clinton To Vote “No” On Cloture Tomorrow
By: Jane Hamsher Sunday January 27, 2008 7:12 pm
Hillary Clinton will be in the Senate tomorrow to vote "no" on cloture on the Intel version of the FISA bill. The vote is scheduled to take place at 4:30 pm tomorrow.
I've also been trying to confirm whether Barack Obama will be there. His campaign people have not gotten back to me, but Obama does have a 4pm fundraiser scheduled in Washington DC.
Bravo, Senator Clinton. Well done.
-
damnthatxanadu
If there were a state that existed where the population was a majority of women and Hillary won over 3/4's of that vote, would it be fair to say that her being a woman had something to do it? And is that sexist? Does her winning that state imply that she would be irrelevant to the rest of the country because she's a woman? Does an opponent stating the obvious make that opponent's remark "sexist"?
Why go to such lengths? Huckabee's win in Iowa--which has clearly NOT translated into other states--was explained in large part to that state's large evangelical population, especially among GOP voters. The numbers fully support this interpretation. Does that make it a bigoted remark? No, not really, because evangelicals have never even begun to be discriminated against as blacks have in this country, so there is no prejudicial context in which such an interpretation could be seen as being bigoted. Whereas there most certainly is with blacks. I.e. even if something is "true", saying it, or saying it in a certain manner or in a certain context, is bound to be seen as bigoted. And Clinton was smart enough to know it, yet said it anyway.
Furthermore, it would be wrong to say that because of his appeal among evangelicals, he could not win either his party's nomination or the general election, because both Carter and Bush did precisely that (forgetting for the moment possible electoral fraud on the latter's part). Huckabee's success in Iowa might to a large part be due to his evangelicalism, but his lack of success beyond Iowa wasn't because he's the "evangelical candidate", but because of other factors. And were Obama to be unsuccessful beyond SC, it wouldn't necessarily be because he was the "black candidate", but also possibly because of other factors.
However, unlike Huckabee (with respect to evangelical and non-evangelical voters), Obama HAS won or come close in states with a far smaller black percentage of voters, putting the lie to the idea that he won in SC only or mostly because he's black. Clearly, to the extent that he is or is seen as the "black candidate", it has not seemed to hurt him so far that much, even if it might have helped him in SC. And yet Clinton made that very assertion, or implication, despite its being demonstrably rediculous AND racist.
It seems undeniable that, given all the evidence that clearly refutes it, what Clinton said was intended to both diminish Obama's win in SC and make him look like less of a viable national (i.e. white America) candidate. Racist? Some think not, but I think so, because to engage in race politics is, in my opinion, to BE a racist (or at least fundamentally dishonest and amoral, which is just as bad if not worse in my book). But racially-tinged? Absolutely and undeniably.
-
Comment by BernieO
"I think the anger about Obama comes from the fact that Hillary is getting ripped apart by the media who are distorting the facts while Obama’s weakness are being ignored in a big love-fest. The whole South Carolina race turned on the false impression that the Clintons played the race card. Yet it was the media who brought up race to excuse their own disastrous performance in NH. Then Obama’s campaign put out a memo accusing the Clintons of playing the race card by twisting what they have said. Obama then denied this, but later admitted it in the debate. He then said the Clintons had not been playing the race card, but the damage was done since our unprofessional media tools kept on hyping the argument."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html?view=screen
-
KcM
As you waste your time exchanging debating points with an obvious liar and troll (as I did, but it's hard to resist sometimes with the newer ones), you might want to research what her supposed mentor Marion Wright Edelman thinks of Hillary these days, with respect to welfare reform and such. Or perhaps mention that Bhutto was killed 1 months ago, not 3 months. Or that Axelrod never accused anyone of killing her. Or that it was actually Shaheen who first interjected race into the campaign, followed up quickly by Kerrey, Penn, Johnson and now Bill.
But then what would be the point when it comes to liars and trolls?
Indeed.
-
Comment by elizabeth
"The fact is that the Clinton’s are not behind the anti Obama rant, check out Obama’s OWN HOME TOWN PAPERS!It is right there for anyone to read."
-
I'm blown away
Re: Bill's Jesse Jackson comment -- In the original interview, there was a question asked before "What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes 2 of you to beat him?" that was cut from the video.
He was first asked "Can Obama win as a Black candidate?"
How can anyone actually think that if he was only asked the 2nd question (the one left in the clip) that he would respond as he did. It makes absolutely no sense. If you watch the video as it is now, he's not even answering the question.
Bill first lets out a chuckle, then says "That's just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice in '84 and '88..."
The media that we've all been fighting for these last several years you now trust? Especially in regards to their #1 enemy, the Clintons?
Wow. Just wow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw&eurl=http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/
-
Kovie
Okay, let's split hairs. You didn't really answer my questions did you? Why go to such lengths? Because it's relevant. Actually, far more relevant than using Huckabee or evangelicals as an example. Sorry, that's a poor example. It's not like evangelicals have anything to really lose comparatively. But women do. So, why wouldn't it matter?
Of course what Clinton said was diminishing. But it's a fact. And really, what has he or Hillary really gained from this? Really? What would it gain Clinton to lose the black vote?