Letters to the Editor
-
Drastic solutions are needed!
I think I've come up with a brilliant answer to the ballyhoo. American feminists should declare their admiration for Ed Gein of Wisconsin who, back around the late Fifties, showed an obsessive interest in female concerns. He also had very progressive ideas on house furnishings, so much so that Hitchcock was inspired to make the film "Psycho". Then African-Americans could shower Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe with laurel leaves for his wonderful work on the African continent, particularly in the sphere of his fellow-Zimbabweans' human rights. That should even the score and let everybody return to real politics.
-
KcM
You need to read more Josh Marshall. He is more for Obama than he is for Hillary.
He said he presumed she'd be the nominee - that doesn't mean he's supporting her.
An Obamabot is someone who parrots every charge the media throws at Clinton, even long after the issue has supposedly been laid to rest by Obama himself (as in: MLK remark was racist - Obama himself says it was not, but he lets his supporters continue to belabor it).
All you have to do is read the comments here and elsewhere - for the past 24-48 hours the Obamabot meme is "she'll do/say anything to win." Even after he pulled the ad. He could retract and denounce those words tomorrow and they would still be parroted by Obamabots from now on.
Josh Marshal retains the ability to see Obama as a candidate, not a saviour. He hasn't endorsed anyone.
Your point remains unproven. Sorry.
-
Russert doesn't read you
Appartently Tim Russert doesn't agree with you. On MSNBC, before the polls are closed and the results determined, TR says the results are all about race.
-
Who started with the racialism
Was certainly the media, as I have been jabbering on about all around town for weeks. I see Obama being 'blackified' by the media, and in place of a human being, a color being injected. Potentially, by the time of the Convention, McCain will have been annointed and will look, to the neutral, like a wisened ol' tough guy, and Obama, who I support and expect to win, will look grizzled, racialized, and exposed by the antics of the self-immolation both Clinton and Obama supporters seem keen on.
But as far as which campaign introduced race as a topic first.. it was without any doubt the Obama camp, when Jesse Jackson the Lesser came out in New Hampshire, well before SC, and said that HClinton's Teary Eyed Moment was A) fake and b) to be examined "in light of Katrina, and other events at which she did not cry" especially "in light of South Carolina" where 45% of the voters will be african american. This was the first major attack along these lines, and I don't see anyone can doubt it. You can say what you wish about any other allusions or dropped words, or changed tonalities, but this is the first overtly racial appeal in the election.
And maureenodonnell: are you suggesting, through codewords and subtext, that there is something wrong with my keeping my mother labia in a box under the floorboards???
-
Whitecat.
My point regarding Marshall, when I quoted his earlier views on the race card, was this: "Marshall is by no means an Obamabot."
You just wrote: "Josh Marshal retains the ability to see Obama as a candidate, not a saviour."
Thus, we agree. Marshall could not be called an "Obamabot."
As for what constitutes an "Obamabot," it's a rather goofy and perverse label in the first place. For my part, I have never argued that Clinton's comments on LBJ were racist, only that they were top-heavy and easy to misconstrue. And, rather than apologize that her remarks could be misconstrued on MTP, she, as is her wont, instead blamed a vast Obama conspiracy.
As for whether Clinton will "say/do anything to win," well I'd agree with that, as -- it seems -- do a lot of Democratic and left-leaning pundits, unaffilated with the Obama campaign, who are aghast at the events of the past three weeks. Go back to my long post before. What, in your mind, could the Clintons do that would be beyond the pale? Anything?
-
What, in your mind, could the Clintons do that would be beyond the pale?
I'll let you know if they ever do it. So far, they've done nothing but smart - if distasteful to Obama supporters and Clinton haters - campaigning.
What, in return, would have to turn up in Obama's past, or in his present actions, would it take to convince you he's not really the person he likes to say he is? Anything?
-
Just to summarize the deal Walsh is offering:
The racialization wasn't the fault of the candidates. Especially not the Clintons. Well, maybe it was the fault of Obama's campaign. They aren't as good as he is. Not that he's so good. Thoughtful sometimes, though.
The media will take the blame. Well not MSNBC. And certainly not Salon. And absolutely not Joan Walsh.
And up ahead: more navel-gazing by the media. Because that's so unusual. And self-absorption is better than self-awareness. And true self-criticism is right out.
In plain English: the Clintons are worried that they received only marginal gains from the race tactic. Even if they did gain some white voters, it's time to backpedal from the strategy now that states with more complicated demographies are in play, especially on Super Tuesday. Just as the media dropped the racial angle for New Hampshire (after riding it hard for Iowa), the media is now signaling it will drop race for Super Tuesday. Maybe gender will make a comeback.
I doubt Obama has any problem with the media/Clinton strategy either. Although the Clintons continue enjoy a media advantage, they could not totally frame the story the way they wanted. Obama, with the help of an excellent campaign, continues to do an admirable job of producing his own image, much to the chagrin of the white media. The latest turn is to his advantage, and very much of his own making.
-
To follow your answer.
I'll let you know when I see it. I'm not so naive to think politics is the province of angels. And I'm sure Senator Obama has some blemishes on his record, as most all successful candidates do. Nothing thus far adds up to much, though. The most troubling aspect of Obama's record to me is his ties to Tony Rezko -- but, thus far, they don't go any farther than Whitewater (which, didn't go anywhere at all, and not for want of looking.)
Where we would disagree, is that I think Clinton's campaign has gone beyond smart campaigning into outright Rovianism, for all the reasons I earlier outlined. You don't wear the ring, you destroy the ring. If we're going to act like Republicans to eat our own, we have no business complaining about the underhandedness of the GOP. None at all.