Letters to the Editor
-
What about Obama's winning margin among women?
I'm typing 1 handed w/a baby in the other...bit did you miss that statistic? Why isn't that stat a major angle in salon or the media?
-
The fact of Rove doesn't justify Rovian tactics.
"Take everything the Clintons have done to date, multiply it by at least 10, and then you'll have a picture of the fall race between Obama and a Republican nominee."
That may or may not be true, but that doesn't absolve the Clintons of acting like Republicans.
Glenn Greenwald put it very well today:
"As for the 'suck-it-up' defense that politics entails rough tactics and one can't whine about it, that is true as far as it goes...For those who are arguing that we need tough tactics in politics, does anything go? If it's the case -- as it certainly seems to be -- that part of the Clinton strategy is to depict Obama as the 'black candidate' comparable to Jackson's candidacy in the 1980s...is that all acceptable, all part of the "politics-is-a-tough-game" justification?
And for all the people who are labelling these concerns "whining" and insisting on the need for tough tactics: were you saying the same in response to complaints about, say, the 1988 Willie Horton campaign or the 2000 "McCain-had-an-out-of-wedlock black baby" slurs or 2004 Swift Boat attacks or this year's "Obama-is-a-Muslim" emails? The point isn't to suggest an equivalence between those attacks but to underscore the fact that complaints about unfair or divisive campaign tactics aren't inherently "whiny" or unrealistic. Sometimes those complaints are valid because the tactics in question are way over the line -- for those who recognize that such lines exist."
The Clintons, and -- happily a dwindling number, in this case -- many of their supporters seem not to recognize the existence of such a line.
-
Clintons
I am a long-time supporter of Bill Clinton. I've been skeptical of Hillary Clinton, but was impressed by her work as a senator and her convincing reelection. She seems hardworking, conscientious and focused. But candidate for president, I always felt she was problematic because of Bill and the Clinton Dynasty issue, and because like it or not, a huge chunk of the country can't stand her for one reason or another. I have never thought she could win over McCain; maybe over the rest of the gang, but just barely, in a year when it should not be that close. She could be a great senator, don't you think? Can't you see her as a highly successful majority leader?
But in the past couple of weeks, it seems to me that this Hillary Clinton has all but disappeared into Them and that the reason is Bill Clinton cannot be disciplined or controlled. This bodes very badly for a general election campaign and subsequent presidency. And the nature of his interventions -- and her spins, too -- do have the flavor of what Bill's opponents have complained about: Mischaracterizations, misleading statements, very hardball politics, professions of innocence and/or a kind of saddened sense that, well, this may not be fair but it's politics and we can't do anything for the people if we don't win.
Frankly I don't buy it this year. In the 90s, even discomfort over the denials over the Lewinsky matter was far more than overcome by the alternatives -- the vicious right wing machine determined to retake power for the right via the Bushes and their sense that they wrongly lost the 1992 election and were entitled to a permanent position of power.
This time, the style and approach is not justified against a fellow Democrat in the primaries. This is how general elections can be lost. Obama is a Reagan-lover? The black candidate. "Jessie Jackson won SC, too." I mean, give me a break. That remark is not just small; it is vicious. It is a very skilled part of the continuing effort to "rebrand" (horrible phrase) Obama as a factional and thus marginal candidate.
I'm sorry. I don't go along with it and I think that although media folks love to crap on Clinton, I think he and They deserve it. They are not attacking for the 90s. They are attacking the Clintons for what they have done in the last two weeks.
-
Two hands for the moment
I'd like Joan to explain why her analysis ignores women's votes, and why Salon hasn't written an article on Obama's successful campaign for women's votes in South Carolina.
-
The "Clinton is preparing Obama for the Republicans" argument...
is really starting to get on my nerves. While it may be true, there is nothing saying that it should be considered OK. It reminds me of people who excuse meanness to their children by claiming they're doing their kids a favor - i.e., 'the world will be hard on you, so I'm going to be hard on you at home'. The primaries don't HAVE to be this way, and it's not good for the party when it is. It makes the Democrats look pusillanimous, and feeds the shallow, sensationalist, celebrity-scandal-style campign coverage that has become the norm.
-
Bill's Jesse comment in response to question about electability of black President
Joan:
I appreciate your objectivity.
I take two exceptions, however:
1. Clinton called Obama and congratulated him. She then put out a statement which also congratulated him. Finally, both she and Bill congratulated Obama in their speeches at their respective townhalls later in the evening on the SC primary. Considering that Obama did not congratulate her after Nevada, it's reprehensible that the Clintons are the ones being excoriated in the press here after they had indeed congratulated him four times.
2. Bill was asked by a reporter whether he thought Obama could "win as an African American candidate. It was to this question that he referenced Jackson and complimented them both Jackson and Obama for running good campaigns. The reporters question was edited out of the distributed video. Perhaps your media connections could provide a complete video or transcript to verify this.
-
The Clinton bashing media
The Clinton's have gotten a terrible, usually unfair, bashing by the media and the press. I can't watch MSNBC anymore because I'm afraid of developing an ulcer. I was really surprised and offended by the Frank Rich hatchet piece in today's Times. Not only were his comments way over the top, but he referred to the Clinton's in tandem, calling them Billary. That is so offensive, it's right out of the playbook of Rove and Atwater. The overwhelming number of columnists for the Times are so lackluster and/or superficial, I am coming close to canceling my subscription. Thank God for Salon because you gave me a place to go.