Letters to the Editor
-
PS to Fester
I bet Weeping got that the first time. Maybe he's the one I should be trying to emulate. Boom. (As my mother would say). Weeping is my new mentor. You're out.
-
An Alternative View
I have always thought, and I continue to think, that if she wants to, Clinton should campaign through the end of the primaries – why deprive South Dakota, Montana and Puerto Rico of their chance to participate in this thrilling, historic election?
Ms. Walsh,
I think the fear on the part of many Obama supporters is that running through all the primaries will not be enough for Sen. Clinton. It's a nice thought, but will she fight all the way to the convention floor? Will the summer be spent embroiling the Democratic party in litigation? Don't you worry a little bit that the ambition and grit you admire in Sen. Clinton will no longer be inspiring but turn ugly?
I worry about that because she continues to press the case of Michigan and Florida. I worry because despite you saying she's "doing the right thing" - I watched her, during a televised speech this weekend, talk about the proposed "gas tax holiday." She didn't just talk about how it would put "$70/month in the pockets of hard-working Americans" but she also mentioned how "the other side" thought it didn't put much money in people's pockets. The subtext was clear: Sen. Obama doesn't understand that $70 helps working class Americans. I'd say that is divisive rhetoric.
You complain that "so many otherwise decent people here so unwilling to understand what her candidacy means to many women?" I never really thought of it in that way, and yes, I can see that element. But mostly I see Sen. Clinton as a practitioner of political division. I see her as a person whose ambition overrides her moral courage. I see her as someone with little intellectual integrity. I don't see her as an historic figure - I see her as someone who should be history.
So it is hard to understand what her candidacy means to many women because I don't see Hillary Clinton as a woman - I see her as a bad senator.
-
@ seamonkey
Thanks for an extremely insightful analysis. That was very informative and it was a perspective I've not heard much of, so thanks.
"The fact is, it's just a matter of familiarity. People there take their time getting used to new things... and they prefer the devil they know to the one they don't. Yes, this race has been going on for well over a year now, but those people have been hearing Hillary Clinton's name for over 15 years, and they're used to it... Barack Obama? Who the hell is that?"
I agree with you on the name recognition, but I think you understate the degree to which other things factor into the familiarity quotient.
It's not just Clinton's name, but all the other perceived negatives about Obama (race, education, elitist, etc.)
Meanwhile, Clinton has defined herself is exactly none of those things, which of course enhances her claim to being "familiar."
Beer-drinking, economist bashing, Farakkhan hating, etc. have all served to exploit the boon that was name recognition and really run with it.
For instance, if she'd run on her name but desisted from all attempts to do the Rove thing, what do you think would have been the result?
I guess I'm asking you, based on your experience, how all these panders are received by their intended audience?
How effective are they?
-
It really was her "hard-working Americans, white Americans" that robbed her of dignity to me
Now you can try to chop it up any way you want Joan Walsh. But if you don't understand just how insulting that is to black Americans (given their history of having been the hard-working Americans and having been held in bondage for doing so) I can't help you.
Again read over my prior posts, I've tried to be nice and concilatory to the Hillary supporters. I've admitted the sexism in this campaign has been atrocious and I could not possibly understand how much that might hurt somone. For their sake I've even apologized repeatedly.
But I will never, in my entire life, forgive Hillary Clinton for her "hard-working Americans, white Americans" comment. She knew exactly what it meant. She never issued a halfway decent apology for it. And it was a dogwhistle for any American with slightly older, more conservative views to "vote against the black candidate."
Now go ahead and slice that up however you want. Belittle it, ignore it, explain it away or blame it on Obama (as everyone seems to) by digging up something he supposedly did wrong.
But I'm sorry that was one of the worst things I've ever seen in electoral politics. And if she wants me to honestly support her as such a "tough candidate" and a "fighter"all of her supporters (Carville, Easley, Ferraro, etc. keep categorizing her) than it's time for her to grow some guts and offer a real, deep and heartfelt apology for that. Not some b.s. through her press agent of some half-hearted appearance on Wolf Blitzer when everyone's at work.
I've tried to understand Clinton supporters. I've tried to be respectful of her. But when someone stoops to preying on racial anxieties that have existed in this country for over 300 years, dismissing (purposefully) an entire race's contributions to this country which she knows damned well were overlooked for too long and dog-whistling to the worst in all of our natures, I'm sorry but they are no longer deserving of my respect regardless of whether they are male or female, black or white. That is what Hillary Clinton has chosen to do.
She has attempted to change the rules, she's catered to what's worse in all of our nature's and she's insisted on re-dragging this country through the worst of it's racial muck (despite people's honest attempts to get past it) why? So she can win? No, purely so she can assure her candidate doesn't for her own future selfish gain. That is disgusting. Period.
-
@Joan, Henry, Nicole, and LT Bahica re the woman thing
I, too, have found myself rallying around Clinton when she's been down for the count (earlier in the season, after bad primary results or bad debates or whatever). I have articulated before, (in particular before she turned me off b/c of what I perceive as her negative campaigning), that she is a good candidate too good for the groveling required to prostrate oneself in front of the body politic when losing.
But I have never understood why some of her supporters have made this campaign out to be a woman thing. As a woman, it seems that I should be on your page (not yours, Hank), but it has never felt right to make it that. So, Joan, when you say
"But why are so many otherwise decent people here so unwilling to understand what her candidacy means to many women?"
I just don't get it. There are boatloads of women for Obama. All over the place here at salon. And I know a freshman boy at the local all-male Jesuit high school shilling for Hillary like you can't believe (called me the night he met Terry McAuliff here in Cleveland, excited as can be).
Do you see that Obama doesn't do this? He just doesn't bring up race like Hillary and her supporters bring up gender. I don't know why it bothers me, but it does. As a woman it does. I wish she had chosen to run a post-gender campaign the way Obama has seriously attempted to run a post-racial one. Please don't tell me she was unable to b/c the sexism was external. She made comments about running against the boys long before the campaigning even geared up. And it's been the subtext all along.
So, Joan, where you have rallied at gender-related mistreatment, I have been turned off by the use of gender by Hillary. As for the very real mistreatment, there is enough of the racist variety against Obama to make them equal on that score. Where they're not equal is in their use of those two identity issues as a subtext for their respective campaigns. I think that 's honestly the crux of what I don't like about Hillary. As a woman, I wanted it honestly to not be an issue, at least to the extent that she had control.