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:
Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:01 PM

Joan Walsh /Journalist and PUMA witness

"But I know an awful lot of people who won't, and their numbers aren't shrinking the way I expected them to. Sure, blame me, it's apparently hella fun. I wish I wasn't right about this, but I am".

Howz about some data to bolster this contention?

Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:03 PM

Bill Clinton

What has got Bill Clinton really pissed off is that his wife lost. That, I'm afraid, can't be helped.

Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:06 PM

I have nothing to say.

Please, Go away.

Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:06 PM

Let's not forget Bill Clinton's antics at Gore's convention in 2000.

I thought the whole slow pan down the corridor like he was Bono or something, as well as his narcissistic and shallow speech, undercut Al Gore.

Besides, Clinton never gave a rat's ass about Gore in 2000. It was all about Hill. Her presidency in 2008 was planned all the way back then.

It didn't work out. I'm sorry. I would have voted for her in November were she the nominee. But she isn't. I thought we were done with all of this already. We need to move on already. This is getting beyond tiresome.

Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:11 PM

Illuminating video

I think this video of Obama answering hecklers' questions in FL really illustrates my point about his wanting to run as a post-racial candidate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sARnrGPlzDg&feature=related

If you stick with it, you'll see that the protesters were essentially accusing him of not running as a "black candidate." Issue by issue, BO showed them that he had in fact addressed predatory lending, the Jena Six, police brutality, and so on. It's clear, though, that he doesn't frame them as black issues, and that's what the AA hecklers were upset about.

Situations like this make clear how dicey the waters are for BO, and yet his answers consistently make clear that he does not want to make race the issue. He wants to address AAs as people, as families, not as blacks.

There was nothing to be gained politically for Barack Obama, ever, by injecting race into this campaign. It has only harmed him. He was sailing along until the race thing creeped in last February. And then it took off, completely against his interests.

I agree with doloresflower who simply cannot abide by these allegations that BO somehow is responsible for the narrative about the Clintons' being racist. The media? Sure. The Clintons themselves, intentionally or not? Maybe. But Obama has only lost ground the minute race became an issue. He has become the black candidate.

Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:11 PM

@wmhogg

You said: "If Bill and Hillary could have proven that they were capable of restraint, self-discipline, and discretion, Hillary would probably be the VP on the Obama ticket right now."

I am very glad she won't be on the ticket! After all the hatred STILL being thrown at this woman, all the lying and baseless accusations, I can't imagine what it would be like if Obama were to have a headache. Surely, she'd be accused of poisoning him. I actually heard Nancy Giles say on TV that if Hillary were VP, he'd need a food taster!

These supporters have gone way over the line in their fanaticism. She was denied the rights that other candidates had. Waiting to concede at the convention like Ted Kennedy did when his vote count was nowhere as close to the presumptive nominee as Hillary's was, for example. She was bullied out of the race by the media and the DNC. I'll vote for the Democratic nominee, Senator Obama, because I don't want another four years of Bush, only older, crankier and with a very bad temper. But it is not with the joy I should be feeling.

Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:13 PM

Please enlighten me

Joan, great and thoughtful article. I thank God every day for your existence. I agree with every word and inspite of the ranting about "getting over it" (Hillary's loss) I think you are right to point out that it is a shame she can't get on the ticket, as many people seem to be hesitating to vote for Obama because he's inexperienced and not a known quantity, and only Hillary has the name identification, star power and reputation to help with that problem.

But now I want to ask a question. I agree that Bill Clinton (who despite his flaws I do admire and like) hurt Hillary's candidacy a lot. I don't think any of us realized what an explosive temper he had before this. But I am puzzled as to why his comment about Jesse Jackson winning the -- was it South Carolina primary? -- was considered racist. Given that a lot of democratic primary voters in that state are African American, is it really "racist" to point out that Obama started out with a huge built in advantage? Yes, he was trying to lessen the impact of Hillary's defeat, trying to lessen Obama's victory there, but isn't that what all candidates and candidates spouses do? What if, say, a state had a huge population of over fifty year old women, and Hillary won that state, would it be sexist to point out that the demographic favored her going in? In my opinion it would just be pointing out a reality.

Don't misunderstand, I have some problems with Hillary's comment about "white voters" -- though I can't remember what it was, now. I just was puzzled about why Bill's comment was considered so racist.

Thursday, August 7, 2008 11:16 PM

BESIDE THE POINT

I have read so many blog entries, comments etc, from self-styled PUMAs, and it is clear to me that charges of Clintonian racism do not represent the motivating grievance behind their unwillingness to rally round the presumptive democratic nominee. Perceptions of sexism rankle far more profoundly, as does the inchoate sense that HRC was somehow "robbed" or that the closeness of Obama's victory somehow means she really didn't lose. I don't consider these PUMAs post-meopausal freaks, as Joan puts it, but I do think they are sore losers, and in my experience nothing short of pretending the contest turned out otherwise ever placates a sore loser. In this case of course such a pretense is not possible, since politics is not a children's game. Consider that their very slogan, Party Unity My Ass, is deployed to extract, or should I say extort, concessions in the name of the very goal, party unity, that they find nugatory compared to the fool's errand of trying to resuscitate HRC's national aspirations. Post menopausal freaks, no; impossible persons, yes. It is not the way Obama won, but the fact that their idol lost that alienates them, and I doubt any conciliatory move Obama might make at this point will spare him the electoral consequences of their self-righteous embitterment.

So by all means, forgive Bill Clinton his entirely uncharacteristic flirtation with racial politics. See how much good it will do you.

Most Active Letters Threads

523

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
426

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
417

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
185

Bigotry wins in Switzerland

By voting to ban the construction of minarets, Switzerland apes the most extreme intolerance in the Muslim world

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon