Letters to the Editor
-
well said loinyc
It's the media who plays the game. they are to blame for the division. Trying to blur the line between whites, rural and racist votes. Three seperate issues. Whites are voting for obama in large numbers. for people like wes talking about these HUGe victories, obama has had his. Not 30 point wins. 60 point wins. 40 50 point wins.
the rural vote is not the white vote. The racist vote is not the white vote. The racist vote is not the rural vote. Obama has a problem with racist voters in certain parts of teh country. It's not a white thing. It's not a rural thing. It's a racist thing. I agree with ron regan jr. The fact that barack can't sway people from being racists is not HIS problem, is the racists problem.
When propogandists blur these lines they do america and the people they propogate against a huge diservice. People like joan and the pundits are doing white rural voters a huge diservice. Why though? Are they reporting the news or trying to create it, by effecting the vote. What ever happened to "do not become the story?" Now the pundits and propogandists do not report the news, they make it. America suffers as a result. our enemy is not the gop or rural voters or white voters. Our enemy (or truth's enemy) is the propogandist for profit media how divides us for profit and power. Once we cut the head off the snake will die. Rush fox hannity beck. Without the borgs brian they are brainless. :)
-
Joan Walsh, Setting the Bar Lower
Never though you could plunge lower than your past, Walsh. But the snide remark about Ephron responding to Bernstein demonstrates better than anything your true essence: a spoiled, privileged, bitter, old, white, racist misandrist. I suppose you lack the intelligence to actually critique Bernstein's remarks, or perhaps you just thought your childish snark was clever.
Or perhaps you lack the courage to face the truth about what you preferred candidate has done in dividing Democrats with petty, often imaginary (and always reactionary) remarks about "sexism" and "misogyny" while simultaneously race-baiting and pandering to the religious right. The "San Francisco" values you so proudly proclaim seem replete with hypocrisy and destructive self-hatred. You and thousands of other bitter, old white women would rather see John McCain as President, it seems - you're more comfortable with a sexist old white man than any black man as President.
-
My thoughts
I have a few questions on the dignity thing.
What exactly is it that Hillary Clintons candidacy represents to people who support her? I have heard over and over that "will be heard" and "not so fast Obama" but what is it that these hardcore supporters of hers want to say to the rest of us?
Also why is the onus on Obama to "make nice" and leave her with face and dignity. She has basically lost. I see these things a lot like i see respect, you earn them by acting in an appropriate manner.
Appalachia problems:
These people for all the misunderstood things and misrepresentation of them (rightly and wrongly) that has appeared in the media lately, its pretty clear to all involved that they are not going to vote for Obama. Why should anyone try to understand them and their "unique" problems? Their problems are no different than any other voting subset in America they just have the unfortunate luck of appearing in the news repeatedly lately and now everyone wants to be sympathetic when four weeks ago they were not even on the radar. Again I ask why are we dividing ourselves over superficial topics and not focusing on us as a Single country as opposed to a collection of demographics? The extra IMHO does not matter. Sure they have regional biases and problems that I will not understand but what I do understand is that they are american and as long as they remain that way they have the freedom to think and say what they please whether I agree with it or not.
Incidentally, I would like an answer to my first question, although I am not a HRC supporter, I still feel that if there is a legitimate gripe it needs to be heard.
-
Kansas, Oh Kansas
SteveHall: "BTW, I have read What's the Matter with Kansas. Interesting about the "branding", isn't it? In an advertising-saturated, consumer-oriented culture like the US, it's all in the brand you buy, right? If I buy Nikes, I can be like Mike. If I vote Republican, I can be a patriotic, successful American."
Right.
MacK: "Of course it is worth noting that Appalachia is not fertile ground for Democrats anyway -- the book "The Trouble with Kansas" would have been much better titled "The Trouble with Appalachia."
As you've both implied, Frank's book pretty much tells it all about how the GOP has manipulated special interest groups, evangelicals and social conservatives to press an agenda, using modern advertising principles, that has benefitted the former's well-connected insiders and constituents while hurting the latter cultural conservatives. At least the breadbasket evangelicals and others seem to be waking up to what's been going on; it's too many of those Appalachian and south-of-the-Mason/Dixon line voters who've allowed themselves to be hoosegowed by diversions such as Terry Schiavo, "us-vs-them [outsiders]" and unfairly-favoured-black bogeymen who've failed to realise that they've pretty much helped Bush's "base" [borrowing a trope from Mike Moore's "Fahrenheit 911] to put the screws to themselves.
-
Does anyone know
1. If pollsters asked--in KY, WV, or elsewhere--whether gender played a role in their vote?
2. If Rush, et al, encouraged Repubs to vote for Hillary in KY or WV? I wonder about the idea that these racists are all Democrats. (I'm talking about the 25% who said race was an issue, not all the voters of those two states. I just watched the clip of David Gergen asking HRC to denounce the racists). Is anyone paying attention anymore to the idea that many of these racists might be Republicans crossing over?
3. If Rush, et al, has toyed with that very question about race--asking his listeners to suggest that they are racists to make the Dems look bad and possibly undercut both HRC and BO at the same time with it?
Just wondering.
I have never believed that Hillary is actually getting the support it seems she is from this WCW demographic in Ohio, PA, KY, and WV as compared to Obama among Democrats (or independents genuinely voting their consciences). I have always felt that the crossover vote is a bigger story than most are willing to admit. It's certainly hard to prove, which is why I think it's mostly ignored. If my theory is true, then, while HRC really isn't winning all these types of states (among Democrats), she at least could feel relieved that she's not the magnet for racists either.