Letters to the Editor
-
Bill Clinton is the Chris Matthews of South Carolina?
Thats a really over the top way to frame this discussion. There probably isn't a media puppet more reviled than Chris Matthews on these pages and you compare Clinton to him?
If Bill Clinton alluded to racism in his interview after the South Carolina primary, who would that appeal to? for this argument to work the entire Democratic party would have to racist on some level.
In his appearance on "This Week" this morning, Obama refused to discuss his own campaigns involvement in framing the race issue to his benefit. It would be nice to see some balance in these discussions.
-
Er, hang on
Glenn Greenwald wrote:
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?
I'm sorry but this is absurd.
"Let's assume that everything I'm saying is true, and everything you're saying is not. In that case, is there anything wrong with my conclusion?"
Gee, when you put it that way, I guess not!
Come on, please at least address the points raised by people if you respond, and not just resort to this.
-
Glenn is correct.
Clinton pointing out that Obama is a black candidate is indeed bordering upon bigotry.
Obama choosing to put the people on stage with him who best match the demographic he determines necessary to win isn't.
If it's about presentation value.
It's where your argument was headed and basically the same method applied by both for that particular state.
Not saying it was particularly wrong either, the largest voting segment needs to be energized and feel they are participants.
But the criticism of one doesn't adhere consistency on viewing both.
Perhaps you could approach that from one being positive and one the assumption that the other is negative, both are within the range of playing to those traits, but with different objectives.
-
Has the bodyh politic finally wised up?
After 8 years of Bush/Cheney negative campaigning, is the body of voters finally seeing a backlash against negative campaigning? One can hope so. Clinton's surprise in NH can be traced to the feeding frenzy in the media and the desperate anti-Obama invectives of the past week appear to have only helped him. On the GOP side, the biggest fear-mongers appear to only have limited (Huckabee) or no support (Giuliani), while the "statesman" McCain is well on his way to front-runner status.
I can only hope so. (And no, don't try to sell me any bridges, I realize how easy a cynical response to this hypothesis can be.)
-
Ockham's razor
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
It's not even really necessary to ASSUME it, they have come right out and SAID it:
Hillary Rodham Clinton has won in South Carolina.
No, not Saturday's primary _ though it's no longer outside the realm of possibility that Clinton will defeat Barack Obama here. What she has won in South Carolina is the larger campaign to polarize voters around race and marginalize Obama (in the insidious words of one of her top advisers) as "The Black Candidate."
http://tinyurl.com/ywgh2f
Believe, if you want, that Glenn is "oversensitive" and AP's Ron Fournier is inventing shit. But I kind of think you have to ask yourself why you feel the need to go through such mental gymnastics.
-
Gladhand
The Clintons push the envelope, step up to the line and seem ready to cross over all the time. They're daring people to call them on their tactics, their game.
Bill Clinton was clever, as usual, in comparing the South Carolina vote for Barack Obama to that for Jesse Jackson. Logically, it seems plausible that Clinton was simply providing his horse race take on yesterday's vote, raising a question about Obama as a viable national candidate. But of course, the Clintons are peddling their own "code" too, and it's unavoidable that many voters will react to what he said on the basis of race, as they are now influenced - or conditioned - by what has already occurred between Mrs. Clinton and Obama on just how the civil rights era went down with MLK and LBJ.
Well.
A clearer picture of how the Clintons work comes from Nevada, where Clinton pushed his face right into a polling place as voters were coming and going. Candidates and their surrogates can work the polls to be sure, but there are local rules on just how close they can come to voters as they are waiting to vote, voting, or leaving. The reporting on Clinton's antics in Nevada suggest he was walking, literally, right up to the line where a voting official might have been forced to issue a warning to a former president about inappropriate contact with voters in a voting station. Clinton created the impression, in my mind anyway, that he was, as usual, prepared to push it as far as he could go.
Bill Clinton is, first, last, and always, his own kind of demagogue. In Nevada, he just looked like your average hack ward heeler.
-
@ paul_lukasiak
Thank you, Paul, for injecting your reasonable comments into this media-manufactured maelstrom.
Now, if Bill Clinton referred to Barack Obama as "the Black thin-skinned candidate," he'd be crossing the line. But, come to think of it, that's the truth, too.
-
Democrats Need an 11th Commandment!
Remember Reagan's 11th Comnmandment ("Thou Shall Not Speak Ill of a Fellow Republican")? We Democrats need an 11th Commandment like this, if we are ever going to take back the White House. As Bilary have shown, we don't have an 11th Commandment right now. Let's pray that we have one after the nomination.