Letters to the Editor
-
"rushing HIllary Clinton off stage"
Good one, Joan.
-
John Edwards
Edwards barely has any pull in North Carolina; I don't know what would have made it worth the trip to send him to Kentucky.
-
@weeping But
This dignity thing has a lot of importance, to some more important than defeating McCain in November. We read about here every day of late.
-
What, specifically, should he do or have done?
And yet, when a candidate who's all but wrapped up the nomination loses two primaries by more than 35 percent, there might be a few things he could do better.
Joan, I think I've asked this of you several times, but how specifically is HRC better than BO for Appalachians or rural Kentuckians? In terms of policy, I can think of not a single way in which HRC would benefit them over BO.
I know that it's politically correct to blame this on race, and of course there is evidence to back this up to some extent, but what about Hillary's role? You honestly seem not to address this. A week or so ago (after NC?), you suggested that she should continue campaigning but without the divisive rhetoric (paraphrasing you here)--as though you had acknowledged that there had been any divisive rhetoric to that point--and I know that you place a lot of blame on BO's supporters, a theme you manage to fit into almost anything you write these days and one which I honestly reject (insofar as they are distinct in their vitriol as compared to HRC supporters).
I think that Barack Obama is doing increasingly poorly among the demographic in question because the media (yourself included) has been driving that point home nonstop for six weeks now, and because Hillary Clinton has said nothing to disabuse them of the notion that she is "better" for them.
I ask again: How is Hillary better for this demographic? If she is not actually better, then how is she helping perpetrate the perception that she is? And how is that not being divisive given that it is all but acknowledged that she is not to be the nominee?
I understand that at some point your column has become a personal mission of sorts for some of us to figure you out, and maybe you are enjoying that game. Like Carol and some others, I too would enjoy it more if I did not regularly feel wronged by your broad strokes against Obama supporters. I will leave that whole topic aside for now, but for you to answer the above questions, it may be necessary for you to answer one put to you earlier: Are you holding out hope for a superdelegate intervention?
To reiterate: It is clearly bad in the purely political sense (in addition to the governing sense) for Barack Obama, the eventual nominee, to continue to be hammered by the press as "not connecting with white working class and rural voters," and yet Hillary supporters if not Hillary herself are pushing that meme. Short of retaliatory vindictiveness along the lines of "We didn't win, so we don't want him to win either!" *sticks tongue out* - not a sentiment I imagine you embracing, what on earth else is on your mind when you choose to highlight "Obama's Appalachian problems" (or whatever else you are calling it) and when you choose to cherry pick and stereotype Obama's supporters to fit your damaging narrative?
Inquiring minds want to know. ;)
PS I know that you mentioned that he should have done his Edwards endorsement in KY, but that is not enough of an answer to my title.
-
From Joan Walsh
Wow, Uncle Fester, that crack is beneath you. Do you think dignity is unimportant? Why are Clinton's supporters beneath respect for so many people here? I've criticized her AUMF vote over and over. I think she'd be winning if she hadn't cast it. Either way, she'd be a better candidate -- and a better person! I absolutely understand opposing her, and supporting Obama. But why are so many otherwise decent people here so unwilling to understand what her candidacy means to many women? Thank God Obama seems to realize it.
The last couple of days, with all the Appalachia hate, have been pretty dispiriting here, I have to say. Again, too many sore winners. Compassion, people. It never backfires.
-
It's so funny
I just got back from a graduate class about social reform, focused specifically on the "moral suasion" strategy of William Lloyd Garrison in his abolitionist efforts before the CW. One guy in the class in particular was disgusted at WLG's strident insistence on purity of cause, on his unwillingness to compromise, on his naively stubborn refusal to engage politically in his campaign to free the slaves. Unlike Frederick Douglass, who wanted to branch out and do other more active stuff, there was WLG writing his articles, thinking that slaveholders would at some point just hit their palms to their foreheads and have a conversion moment, thanks to his persuasive prose.
As much as I appreciate Garrison's persuasive prose, I sorta see my classmate's point. WTF good did it do? We had the war anyway.
Scratch that last post, Joan.
-
Joan, I don't think you should personalize so much.
If I understood it correctly, Fester was suggesting that the drawn-out race, perhaps at this point merely to preserve Clinton's dignity, has itself become a liability to Obama's electability, given the narrative that's emerged about the demographic in question. I don't see that as demonstrating the NOS (Nasty Obama Supporter) trait that you seem not to be able to not see but as an entirely legitimate political observation.
I'm serious--I can't believe you think there was anything wrong with that. You're not Chelsea, you know. I mean, when she is forced to answer questions that feel a little bit critical about her mom, I can see her getting a bit defensive, but for godsakes, this is a political column meant to analyze the political situation, is it not?
Sorry if the tone isn't quite right here; I'm not trying to be combative, just frustrated.
(PS, not that Fester can't defend himself. I just know that he won't. He is far too transcendent. I'm trying to be more like him, but it's not working.)