Letters to the Editor
-
Obviously, a Obama-Clinton ticket will work just fine
Have Obama run for President with Clinton as the VP.
-
Coalitions
When we talk about white, working class voters, we don't talk about one incredibly taboo subject: religion. A majority of white, working class voters are self registered christians, who are being told how to vote from the pulpit (in direct violation of tax law, might I add).
The solution to this is to reach out to those voters in a way that will convince them that we can make their lives economically and substantially better so as to marginalize "socially" divisive issues. at the end of the day, the candidate who promises to put more food on their table and make their car payments easier is going to win, nomatter what anti-abortion, anti-Islam, craziness their pastor cooks up. So we promise to get jobs back to those areas of the country hit hardest.
The bottom line: Actually make life better economically, and we don't have the problem of "bitter" or "white working class" or "christian v. non christian". But if all we're going to do is make hollow promises, all we're going to get is hollow elections. How do we fix this between now and november is unknown to me, but maybe if the democratic congress put some bills on the table that talked about seriously bringing jobs back to America, we'd get a little mroe traction among the working classes.
-
Uniting
We unite by Clinton bowing out gracefully and working hard for Obama to win. The race is over. Lets admit it,move on and win.
-
BE HONEST, JOAN
The way you rode the Jeremiah Wright issue, no, most Democrats (read YOU) can not have a serious discussion about race. It's pretty freaking obvious at this point. And let me be frank in telling you that it's pretty freaking insulting that you would have the, uh, FORTITUDE to ask such a disingenuous question.
-
It bothers me a lot...
That Donna Brazile, who out and out said we need to add to the coalition, is getting as much criticism in this piece as Hillary Clinton is for saying that black people are a 'given' in the election. The fetishization of the white working-class voter is really, really disturbing, and I say that as someone who knows and loves many white working-class voters.
-
Why Democrats can't talk about race
Because the War on Drugs is the number one engine of racial inequality in the country. Youthful experimentation stays in the past for young whites; it mushrooms into a criminal record and denial of college financial aid for young blacks.
But we can't talk about that. It's just some mysterious aspect of nature that scientists don't understand and technology can't control.
We're all powerless to do anything about it. So why talk at all?
-
What Hillary said
Hillary probably does not have a racist bone in her body. However, she did point out that white, blue collar Americans are racists. And, rather than try to bring those Americans together, she just said "I am your candidate!"
THAT is what Hillary did wrong. Get it Joan? Hell-o?
Here is what Obama is saying that most of us find appealing: WE can work together, it is about US. Here is what Hillary is saying, that WE hear: It is about ME, it is MY turn to be President, I deserve it. I can get the black vote, and I will get the racist white folk vote because Americans are basically stupid. And I will bring down the party to get what is mine.
Joan, when you get that, maybe you will understand the mania for Obama that many of us older, white women --who really, really, really want a female President--have adopted.
-
Walsh can't have an honest discussion with herself
So who the hell are you to tell others to have an honest discussion about race? You're a dishonest shill for Hillary who slants everything you have written about the race, making every excuse you can think of for her every misstep. Or, as in the case of her Bosnia lie, you and your staffers just ignore it while you feed for days on anything negative about Obama. Walsh needs to take a long hard look at herself and do a mea culpa before handing out any advice. What a joke Salon has for an editor.
-
I Vigorously Disagree
Democrats need to get out of the (this time self-inflicted) quagmire of identity politics if they really want to win on a national scale.
The need to finally shift perspective so that they can clearly articulate the fact that they are the party representing America's fundamental interests and not more narrowly defined demographic segmentations.
Fortunately, this happens to be both 1)unifying policy and 2) true. I suspect that this is what Brazille was getting at and hope that the party has the courage to take a stand for yes, unity, rather than division.
-
Can Democrats learn to talk about race?
Yes. But the issue isn't race with Democrats, it's socio-economic class. Republicans (and still far too many Southern Dems) don't need to talk about race because it's pretty much a given that they are mostly racists.
-
Fascinating...
First, that Clinton makes yet another huge gaffe and it becomes Obama's problem?
Second, perhaps I have a slightly more rosy view of the American public. Or perhaps I have a Pollyanna-ish trust in most people's innate good sense.
Sure, lots of white folks voted for Hillary. Lots voted for Obama, too. It was, in point of fact, a difficult choice to make, given the similar nature of their policies. Does it automatically follow that all those hard working white folks who voted for Hillary are going to suddenly discover their policies are really much more closely aligned with John McCain and the Republican Party because Obama is the Democratic candidate?
Hardly, I would say, except perhaps in the minds of hysteria suffering pundits and spineless party operatives whose job it is to worry that somebody, somewhere, at some point in time, might have been offended.
-
Phony hand-wringing is patronizing
Yawn. Hillary is just out on the campaign trail, pandering per usual. I'm not sure how this is any different than whiskey shots in PA, riding around in a pick-up truck in IN, dropping her G's in the south, pushing a bogus gas tax scheme in NC and IN, carrying on about shooting guns in Scranton, sitting down with Richard Mellon Sciafe in Pittsburgh, teasing Rush Limbaugh in NC. She goes to a state, sizes up her odds, looks at her internal polling, appeals to the voters she thinks she can win, and then moves on the next state and applies the same formula. Simple. (And it doesn't seem to matter to her supporters that these state-to-state changes require adopting completely different personae - making her look fragmented and unstable.) The difference now is that she's running out of groups to pander to, so she's been forced to become more direct and explicit. Thus invoking the word "white" a couple of times (it wasn't just once) in a state that is - surprise! - 97% white. And it will work for her because the only real value in mentioning race at all in WV is to underscore the race of her non-white opponent. The polls there already have her through the roof. This will only help.
What's left out of the discussion is not that Obama has a problem with whites (exit polling shows he's actually made gains there since Ohio) - he doesn't - it's that he has an issue with blue-collar voters. That's the issue, so it was certainly curious that Clinton had to qualify that by invoking race while sitting in WV. Again, you be the judge.