Letters to the Editor
-
@ mark cooney
I am sorry if I wasn't clear but I didn't not say that we are being spoon fed. I said it was the media who is being spoon fed a narrative by the candidates and the campaigns who know exactly what they are doing.
-
The media's role has been nothing but the Clinton's enablers
Since the moment Obama won the the Iowa caucus we've been subjected to nothing but a sickening circus of CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON. The media has breathlessly followed the Clintons down whatever slimey path they chose. There has been no discussion of issues at all...just CLINTON CLINTON CLINTON. And if the topic changes, rest assured the clintons forced their way back into the headlines.
-
Boo-Hoo! My Opponent is Being Mean to Me!
Obama *is* a whiner, and Clinton is too. He's happy to play the race car if it depicts him as a victim and wins him African-American votes, just as Clinton plays the gender card when she wants female votes. Their back-and-forth has been pathetic. Vote for an adult--John Edwards!
-
@ pieceofcake
First, Senator Obama identifies himself as an African-American.
Second, he truly is an "African-American," as the child of an African father and American mother.
I suppose we could call him a Kenyan-American, but it is more common to use the term "Hispanic-American" than Colombian-American so it has precedence.
-
Indeed.
It has been a constant truism for all time that where the press is concerned that they will make a story out of nothing. I have been shocked by how much both of these candidates (Clinton and Obama) have had their remarks or comments taken out of context during the course of this too long campaign, sometimes by each other, but most often by pundits and commentators whose economic survival depends on finding an angle and working it to its endpoint.
A couple of days ago, or perhaps only yesterday--who knows anymore, they all seem to blur now--when Sen. Clinton appeared on the Today Show she was obviously trying to tone down the negativity of these previous days and spoke in a highly conciliatory tone. In the course of the interview Matt Lauer showed Mrs. Clinton a picture of herself and Mr. Clinton with Chicago's Rezko character, and she made it perfectly clear that she did not know him, remember him, and would not know him if he walked into the room. She said that she has taken "probably hundreds of thousands" of pictures during her time as first lady, and U.S. Senator, and that there was a big difference between taking a picture with a man and knowing him for seventeen years. It was fair distinction and was not said at all negatively.
Yet, several commentators took up the story and accused Sen. Clinton of trying to work work two angles: Remain positive, yet attack. Some even went on to imply the picture proved a connection. The woman did not attack anyone.
Earlier in the week Obama was asked by a reporter whether Mr. Clinton was "getting into his head." Mr. Obama responed calmly, and with a tone that showed he did not think that the question was appropriate. Yet, later I read how Obama had grown angry and edgy and had verbally attacked the reporter. No such thing occurred.
President Clinton, also earlier in the week, when responding to a question, did so with equanimity and humor, and was also unfairly treated by a wide variety of sources. I later read that his comments were delivered with red-faced fury, and that they contributed to heightening the negative racial tone. It was a complete farce.
It has been a sad affair, this whole last week, and it is time that all parties, the press included, change their tone.
-
"The Case Against Hillary Clinton"
One of the problems with the Clinton's negative campaign, is that it fits a pattern for them that goes way back. For an interesting read on why not to vote for Hillary, Christopher Hitchens has a piece up on Slate that might help put the past month or so into perspective.
What's going on with the Clintons now, is nothing new. The players and the context has changed but the M.O. has not.
http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/
-
Race in the primary campaign
To my mind, the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand moment that started the whole conflict was Gloria Steinem's regrettable piece in the New York Times. It was a case of special pleading that electing a woman president was more important than electing an african-american. (Of course she caveated that argument by saying she did mean to make it). I hate the whole group identification embodied in that. The first time I saw Obama speak in person (before he was nationally famous), I said to myself that this guy should be President. The symbolic achievement of electing an african-american never occurred to me. To often I fear that Hillary supporters have as an end in and of itself, the objective of breaking the glass ceiling.
-
Tip toe up to coded language
Between the robo calls and the sudden bursts of emotional demagoguery, I don't think it takes a genius to call the Clinton moves of the last week or two 'cagey'. And to the extent that Clinton is waxing philosophical about how MLK was a 'dreamer' and Johnson was a 'doer', I don't think it's sane to say that she wasn't making a point.
That, my friends, is a point. She was making one. She meant what she meant, and it's coded and weird and a little iffy of an argument. And Joan is missing it because she has her mind made up.
Joan, stop giving Hillary the benefit of the doubt. She's smart as hell and knows what she's doing. The LBJ quote made me queasy, because she's making an appeal to 'practicality' over 'political activism'.
Blech. Who can stomach it?
-
rebeca really?
Really?
But in our family the mother always came first and as
we are talking about race would it be okay to call him
a "White-African-American??
-
Just because someone (white, black, whatever) says it's racist ...
... doesn't make it so. And just because someone (black, white, whatever) says it isn't ... etc. It actually does matter what the person says, what the person means, what various audiences hear, and whether there are legitimate other interpretations. When a man with a proven history of being pro woman says something I find tin-eared, something with a non-misogynistic rationale, *I* am the unethical one if I try to pretend his remark meant something other than what it did.
This is what happened with the MLK/LBJ remark.
Hillary was a fool to say it. What she should have said (if she said anything on the topic): John Kennedy was an inspiring leader, and he motivated the country, but the political leader who brought us the Civil Rights Act was Lyndon Johnson, a man who knew how to get plans implemented.
What happened with the "fairy tale" remark was sheer race-baiting on the part of the Obama surrogates who were circulating memos to Black radio stations in urban areas. Being dismissive of a story a politician is trying to tell is NOT racist. Calling something a fairy tale, or saying a candidate is inexperienced, is NOT the same as calling someone "uppity," which is what journalist Eugene Robinson has claimed on MSNBC.
Again, you can say that belittling another candidate is ugly politics, but it isn't inherently racist. Even when the other candidate is African American. Just because you don't like the effects doesn't make the critique a racist one.