Letters to the Editor
-
Harry Cheddar
Glenn, you are the only person here using that type of exclusive language. Not even Bill Clinton said that.
What was his point, then, in comparing Obama's win to Jackson's?
And if you're arguing that race was not a significant factor in the Obama landslide in SC, you are either disengenuous or deluded.
There were many, many significant factors. Race was one of them. And?
Lastly, if making a comment which implies the honest significance of race in this overwhelming win is beyond the line, then you're going to have to publish some kind of chart showing what truths cannot be alluded to by men of good conscience.
Just assume for the moment that the stategy of the Clinton campaign is to depict Obama as the "black candidate" in the mold of Jesse Jackson -- meaning a candidate whose candidacy (as perceived) is built largely on representing minorities and a racial appeal of attracting votes largely from racial minorities but nobody else.
And assume that their purpose in this strategy is that they know this will make white voters view the race as one of racial tribalism. Since there are more white voters than black voters, this means the white candidate will win.
Do you think there's anything wrong with that strategy?
You have been doing the lord's work on many issues. But I think you are being oversensitive here.
--
-
clinton's comment are not defensible
Dear Glenn,
I agree with you. Bill Clinton's comments are indefensible. He is clearly trying to marginalize Obama as the "black candidate". As it was reported on the CBC radio news this morning, it sounds like Clinton is saying that the true test for Obama will come when the "real" (i.e., mainstream, i.e., white) voters in other parts of the country vote.
There may be some truth to the idea that many black voters in South Carolina voted for a black candidate. But to go on to suggest that this, therefore, invalidates Obama's victory is not to simply observe what may be a sociological reality. It is also to play to this idea, to promote the notion that other Americans who are not of African background should maybe start thinking about voting along racial lines themselves. Moreover, it is an approach that seems completely insensitive to the racial realities of the US. Bill Clinton is playing the race card. There is no way that this is acceptable. As it is, if Obama ends up as the Democratic candidate, the Republicans will play racial politics with everything they have. It will take a lot to prevent the US from dividing along racial lines in many areas of the country. It will be much harder for the Democrats to respond to that, if and when the time comes, if their front-runners are guilty of the same thing.
Sincerely,
Shaun Narine
-
Let's face it: the media hate the Clintons.
The cable news and newspaper and talk radio pundits & blowhards hate Bill Clinton and hate Hillary Clinton even more. Bill Clinton is not doing his wife any favors, either, with his nasty comments.
It's a good time to read the tea leaves:
1. Edwards is not going to be the nominee (though he is the best one in the race, IMO);
2. Hillary Clinton will be torn to shreds by the media;
3. McCain may well be the GOP's nominee; ergo
4. Barack Obama is the best chance we Democrats have for winning in 2008. I just hope that he stops being such a GOP-lite politician and remembers taht he's a Democrat, not a new Reagan.
-
Exploiting racial division? Hardly.
When candidates lose primary elections, they spin the results in a way that minimizes the significance of the loss and maximizes the viability of the candidate in future primary elections. Any plausible spin will do. In fact, to point out that South Carolina has a huge black population that has historically been very committed to supporting black candidates is an extremely plausible explanation for a genuine disparity between SC results and results in past primaries and polls for upcoming states.
What's racist is to suggest that entirely normal post-election spin is out of bounds in this case solely because Obama is black. This notion of having to have a special discourse that applies only to a black candidate and beating down anybody who breaks the rules of that special discourse is what all true progressives should be fighting against. By purportedly protecting blackness from--what? marginalization? whatever that means--through this condemnation, you are reinforcing the true racism here.
This take is also wildly inconsistent. Earlier, when Hillary commented that the boys were piling up on her, the mass media (not you, Glen) piled on her mercilessly, claiming falsely that she was trying to exploit gender divisions to her advantage--she should get no special consideration for being female--the clear subtext being not if she's campaigning for a man's job. But Obama is never seen as exploiting race, no matter what strategy he employs, and to violate that would be to slay the sacred cow. Any discourse about his campaign's strategic manipulation of racial politics has to be shouted off the stage.
You can't find any objective put down of blacks, Jesse Jackson, or Obama in the words spoken or quoted. If these words imply a racial put down to you, you should examine your own thinking. Physician, heal thyself.
-
@ Anon
And why is comparing Obama's SC win to Jesse Jackson's SC win racist? Bill was trying to say that Obama did not break through any barriers that night. That isn't racist. That's the truth.
--Anonymous
If you're the same Anon, I just pointed out that there is a huge disconnect between making a comparison of the '84 and '88 Jackson victories to this 2008 Obama victory which make Clinton's statement disingenuous. Especially your point on the 'barriers' goes by the wayside due to the difference in the circumstances that I've pointed out between those two races and this current one.
-
Too bad Hillary is female...
...While Bill is doing his divide & conquer shtick via race, I guess it's lost on him Hillary's gender is still (and always will be) an albatross around his strategy's neck.
A white male is talking shit so he can get a white female elected.
There is, among other things, a large amount of irony to be found here.