Letters posted here are associated with the following article:

502
Letters
Friday, August 8, 2008 12:00 AM

Whew!

Bill Clinton will reportedly have a speaking role at the Denver convention. Can someone explain why that was ever in question?

The letters thread is now closed.

View:
Friday, August 8, 2008 07:18 AM

@oaracle

Hillary's got the handle on health care, so hey put that know how to work.

Friday, August 8, 2008 07:13 AM

Smears?

"Smears" seems to imply that the criticism was unwarranted - I disagree. The Clintons invited that kind of criticism when they repeatedly invoked race throughout the campaign: the Jesse Jackson comment, the MLK/LBJ comparison, insisting Obama "reject and denounce" Farrakhan, Mark Penn continually mentioning drug use, invoking the spectre of assassination, etc. I could write off any one of these remarks as a slip of the tongue. Over the course of the primary, though, this became such a pattern that I have a hard time believing the Clintons didn't know what they were doing. And judging from the comments by Ferraro and others ("inadequate black male"), it sounds like Hillary's supporters got the message loud and clear. At best, the Clintons were guilty of being incredibly tone deaf.

If you want to know why Bill Clinton is still pissed, this quote by Joan says it all:

It's still fashionable to blame zealous pro-Clinton PUMAs for the schism, and call them menopausal, cranky freaks. There are a few out there. But I think there are also rational Democrats still shaking their heads over how the civil-rights-championing Clintons were turned into racist white scapegoats.

In other words, Bill Clinton's history with the black community should make him immune from criticism for his own assinine remarks. After all, we know the Clintons aren't really bigots. They were just doing what they felt they needed to do to win.

And that justifies everything.

Friday, August 8, 2008 07:12 AM

Many roles for Hillary

Joan, stop mourning for Hillary. She played her cards the way she saw them and came up short. I agree she will not get the VP nod because Bill would be a huge complicating factor.

However, short of being VP Hillary still has many potential roles in an Obama administration, even as a Senator (and her trademark Healthcare issue). Other than that there are several cabinet positions she could fill (if she wanted to), and a possible seat on the Supreme Court. She has no judicial experience but is whip-smart, so what the heck, she can learn on the job. But she has the right instincts to be a good Justice. So she still has a bright future ahead, just not the one she imagined. Her supporters need to begin to take hold of reality and embrace it.

Friday, August 8, 2008 07:03 AM

@Taliesan

The definition of sonofloud: talks loud, says nothing.

Friday, August 8, 2008 07:02 AM

A few things

@sonoffloud, I liked Bill Clinton, too. He wasn't running for office, his name was not on the ballot, I might have voted for him again, but maybe not, he was initially supportive of the war with Iraq, like his wife.

My husband doesn't get to assume all of my qualifications, talents and flaws, I don't get to assume his.

@AKA, I never thought he was qualified Well, bully for you. Hillary and Obama, both smart lawyers, both married to strong opinionated lawyers, both first term Senators from blue states, both interested in local politics from college on. Their qualifications seem pretty darn similar. I think both Hillary and Obama are/were qualified.

Also, as for the over the top, freaky anti-Clinton supposedly pro-Obama supporters that now have "disappeared"? Did you consider that for the most part, Operation Chaos is now over? It was in the R's interest to drag out the fight and make it as ugly as possible, for both sides. As always, the R's are pretty successful at that type of thing.

Along with disaffected Clinton supporters, there are a few fake Clinton supporters (R-trolls) here on Salon's message board, too. You can spot them when they have to rush to defend Reagan, or have to immigrant bash or actually do spout racist crap.

@doloresflower, nice try and good points/post, it seems to be like banging your head against the wall though with some.

Friday, August 8, 2008 06:59 AM

sonofloud

The "corrupt Democratic caucus" was initially behind Hillary. The Media had crowned her president before the race even began.

It was only Iowa that changed the race around, and even then the race was between Obama, who came first, and Hillary who came third. Edwards, the guy who came second, was more or less written out of the narrative at that point. You can't claim that Hillary got a particularly rough press, particularly after the press forced Obama to leave his Church.

But then, the Hillary crowd still loves echoing Republican talking points so I fully expect to hear you lot harping on about how the press used their magical mind control powers to make Hillary say stupdid, stupid things for the next eight years.

Friday, August 8, 2008 06:57 AM

@ Alan Bennett

I was just about to turn in when I saw your post. All the media has done to the Clintons through the campaign and up to now is play gotcha. We have a truly horrid media on our hands whether they be right or center (there really is no left).

Do you read Greenwald and his usually very on target criticisms of the media? I mostly agree with him but it is just not the MSM. We now live in a short news cycle, celebrity-driven, trashed-oriented 24 hours a day media hell.

Why anyone runs for office, I can't imagine. I suspect the media may turn on Obama now. It's what they do. They only ever build people up in order to tear them down.

Friday, August 8, 2008 06:53 AM

@Joanna

Joanna Joanna, be cool. I don't think your comments should be casually dismissed as a rule.

Friday, August 8, 2008 06:50 AM

Oh, and Joan

I can't believe you said the "allegedly sullen Clintons" were the hot news on television yesterday. There is no "allegedly" about it. Hillary, two months after the conclusion of the primaries, still talking about putting her name in for nomination, and Bill parsing words again (it makes me ill to remember the last time he tried to educate all of us about the meaning of the word "is") regarding whether Obama is ready to be President by lecturing about the list of qualifications set forth in the Constitution (it makes me yawn already imagining his convention speech) WAS ACTUALLY SULLEN! No way this description of their behavior deserves your parsing of words, calling it "alleged."

The Clintons have been acting sullen for many months. It is the result of their feeling entitled beginning back in 2007.

As many people have said here, I used to love the Clintons, but they have really turned me off in the last year. It has become all about them, and not about the issues, or the country. If they really cared about this nation, they would take their second seat gracefully. Somebody had to lose, it was either going to be the first woman or the first black person who had a shot at the presidency. Hillary's loss is no greater tragedy than Obama's would have been, but I am willing to postulate that if Obama had lost he would not be moaning to everyone who would listen about how the Clintons were dissing him (and if he did he would be called "presumptuous").

Most Active Letters Threads

438

Do Obama officials know what his Afghanistan plan is?

What explains the completely contradictory statements from key aides on a central plank of the war strategy?
408

America's regression

It's almost impossible to find a nation with as many torture advocates as the U.S. has.
332

Palin: Birthers have "fair question" about Obama

Of Obama birth, the ex-governor says, "the public is still, rightfully, making it an issue" (Updated)
109

Is my kids making me not smart?

Stay-at-home fatherhood dulls my intellect to a nub. Excuse me while I ponder the subtext of "Hippos Go Berserk"
99

I survived Glenn Beck's Christmas spectacular

The preposterous showman brings his holiday book, and waterworks, to the stage and screen. Lights! Camera! Jesus!

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon