Letters to the Editor
-
What is this thread about?
Is this thread about capturing the white working class voter? The answer to that is so simple: Clinton owes it to the party to tell her base that Obama deserves their votes. That he is a patriot, that he is not a Muslim, and that he cares about their issues.
Or is this thread about fighting some stupid war of words about whose supporters are more authentically Democrat?
I don't think this is how elections are won. I don't think Republicans are spending this election wondering whether the creationist bible belt anti-abortion voter is less "authentic" than the trust fund crowd vote. I think Republicans are happy with any vote that comes in. And I think if we want to win we might stop this stupid discussion of whether supporters of the candidate from Wellesley and Yale are more blue collar than supporters of the candidate from Columbia and Harvard.
I'm not a Republican. But virtually every person I know is. And I can tell you they don't spend election season taking cheap shots at each other. They don't even really have much enthusiasm for their candidate this time, but that isn't going to get in the way of their supporting him.
I think elections are won by getting behind the candidate and getting to work. And if we lose some part of the white working class, because of race or because of the word "bitter", maybe we pick some up from the 4 million 18 year olds who were born in 1990, and the nearly 4 million who were born the year before that. Maybe we pick up some disaffected Republicans. I know a few like that. I know a man who has voted Republican every year since 1964 (Goldwater, yet) who is not only voting for Obama, but raising money for him. The war finally got to him, and the wild spending to fund the war really infuriates him. Maybe we look for more people like him: maybe we replace the anti-black voter with the anti-dumb war and its costs voter.
But I don't think elections are won by endless debates about whether the white working class does or doesn't like affluent mostly white college graduates.
-
Disgusting posts
Whenever you set out to denigrate someone, all you end up doing is denigrating yourself.
I highly doubt a lot of you can afford any more unattractive qualities so take heed.
-
Big Phi,
If you're so smart, why can't you figure out how to talk to other people respectfully as a more effective way to push your agenda?
Oh, wait - could it be that your only agenda is to piss people off so you can feel superior to them?
There is a name for that, and I'm sure a smartypants like you knows what it is. But just in case you're as stupid as you act, the word is Troll.
-
Way back at the beginning
I posted about Hillary Clinton and the media, that it seemed the media gave men passes that they would not give Hillary Clinton. I got one of those lovely red stars for that comment.
However, it is clear to me that when to comes to supporters and campaigns, the Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign started the party-dividing nastiness way back when, and I am not sure if they even realize it, or if they are enjoying the attention (which isn't doing them any good, Hillary is still losing). Not everyone is a concious troll. Some people just swing blind out of anger, but they are swinging at their own anger.
We got our Salon renewal and I need to think about this. There is an editor that seems to have disdain for much of her readership or is overcompensating for perceived or real slights, and the incentive is a book by a blogger I don't respect. I might renew just to show support for Glenn Greenwald.
It's really too bad. A year ago I wouldn't have thought twice about this. We get attached to our favorite sites.
-
When Hillary finally loses, it'll be because of all the rampant sexism that was waged against her -- right, Joan?
I think Camille Paglia put it best in her article today:
"Sexism will inevitably be the lurid postmortem apologia for why she failed to break the ultimate glass ceiling. Never mind her faults, limitations and dizzy-making multiple personality disorder as a candidate -- or her depressingly unfeminist professional attachment to an alpha male who may be the real reason she won the votes of many working-class white men."
Won't it be wonderful when the Billary psychodrama finally ends?
-
Hillary's candidacy
So much of the mainstream press have fueled the Clinton campaign's talking points about Obama's ability to bring in white, working class voters - Reagan Democrats. Once again, poor, lazy analysis. Reagan Democrats won't go for Hillary. They never went for Bill. And what about Hillary's ability to bring in Barack's voters? Could she bring in the many young, new voters; the college educated; independent Republicans?
-
Joan, elitism isn't unique to Obama supporters ...
... it's been a problem in the Democratic party for ages. This is one of the challenges of being a big tent party whose most vocal members are (lets face it) urban blacks and upper class coastal liberals. A lot of these voters really do have contempt for the kind of middle American voters who tend to vote GOP.
Hillary has been courting working class whites out of necessity; she's lost every other demographic and is getting clobbered among blacks. If Hillary had won the nomination, you'd see just as many disparaging remarks about cowpoke backwater rubes voting against their interests in red states.
I agree with you that Democrats have a lot of work to do in reaching out to these voters, but I think you're wrong to imply this is a problem with Obama in particular. The entire party is responsible for its condescending attitude toward middle America.
-
Bending over for the Republicans
Don't worry, after John McCain wins the election in November and these poor West Virginians are again taking it up the ass from the Republicans, I'm sure they'll still proudly be proclaiming how they'll never vote for a black guy.
-
salon.com "liberals" aren't the problem
If you could think straight, Joan-- you'd remember that anything in the way of support and sympathy the people of West VA get is from those same "liberals" who are incensed at Hilary's racism. Social security, one of those "liberal programs", and medicare, protects the working poor to the extent they have any protection. As a liberal, I have no use for war, against another country, or against one's oponent in an election. When Hilary "tried" to get universal health care the first time, her high handed tactics, and "my way of the highway" attitude demonstrated that she will not get along with people to accomplish anything. By the way, I'm 76, white, female and educated. I was listening to NPR from WI this AM discussing the W VA election, and 75% of the calls to Joy Cardin's Open Line were against including Hilary on the ticket because of her racist remarks and uncooperative attitudes. And most of the callers, from 8-9 CDT identified themselves as white Democrats, and about half were women "of a certain age". So WI PBS listeners must be too liberal for you too. But the calls gave me hope for the future.