Letters to the Editor
-
Stop the Passive Aggressiveness!
After spending millions of dollars on advisors and strategists Clinton still seems to not get it -- people don't want to hear complaining by candidates; they want to hear ideas. Don't complain about race when you are using the gender card (and also bring up the race card when it's convenient). After South Carolina Hillary for awhile was upbeat, spoke of ideas and there was little drama. Then suddenly it was back to blasting Obama on ridiculous items which left herself open for attack (e.g. NAFTA). As a woman I can say that if you act like a girl, you'll be treated like one. THat's just life in the U.S. In Hillary's case, she is accomplished on her own - yet time and time again falls back into the victim role (or wife who needs defending). Unfortunately it's a show that's been going on 15 years and nothing is new any more. I think the last debate showed that OBama can talk policy and specifics too. And in a way it's ridiculous for either to debates plan that don't exist yet (with regard to healthcare). I think Obama has showed great restraint with regard to race - given how often others bring it up. And what can he do - he is an African American - so people are going to fixate on that - just like Hillary being a woman. I know lots of women who are voting for Hillary just because she is a woman - and why not? But Hillary can't then complain about any benefits Obama might receive just by virtue of being African American. Those are probably minor compared to the many obstacles it will cause because so many people in this country are still not color blind. I don't think the Clintons are racist - nowhere near. But this campaign has shown they are willing to jump into that pool if there's a political advantage to it.
-
@akira1
You say: "To Katetex: what corner has Obama backed people who do not support him...?"
The corner I'm referring to is this: how can anyone vote for a candidate they've come to view as not only having no more integrity than his opponent (if as much), but who has managed to maneuver that opponent into a place of deep and undeserved scorn? I see Obama as having done precisely that - with full complicity from the MSM, of course. This completely undermines the whole premise and ostensible advantage of Obama's campaign: "I'm the nice guy in the race, the guy who will change everything and bring you all together." In short, I've come to see Obama as a phony. However, neither can I can bring myself to vote for McCain, with whom I'm philosophically at odds on nearly all the big issues.
At any rate, thanks for asking - nice to have a civilized exchange.
-
@Number Six
"It's a hit job, and not a very good one. I truly do not understand how anyone who has actually been paying any attention at all can take it seriously. If you don't like Obama, that's one thing, stick to issues, but don't go down this delusional road of trying to rewrite recent history to try to pretend that Hillary has not in fact ran the worst campaign of the last thirty five years."
Just because you agree with X's posts doesn't make his counter argument any better than Wilentz's original. IMO, X talked around and around and around and around Wilentz's central point until his conclusion which, was underwhelming to say the least.
It's amusing that you're trying to cast people who have a different take on something as "rewriting recent history". The events in this campaign that are being currently discussed are hardly established and undisputed historical facts and are certainly open to more than one intepretation no matter how much you try and pretend otherwise.
Also, the idea that "Hillary has not in fact ran the worst campaign of the last thirty five years." is not a "fact" at all. It is an absurdly over the top assertion.
-
Katetex
I really have no answer to the difficulties you have with Obama because to a lesser extent they are mine as well, but I do thank you for taking the time to explain them to me.
-
To lateagain, I always enjoy what you write even when you are late and I disagree with you.
I hope you won't mind but I would like to take some of what you have said point by point.
You said: But has it occurred to Clinton supporters that the media, in its ever blundering and bat-like bumping into to things until it gets a "hit," has been the culprit in the oversensitivity to race?
Oh sure. I have been saying all along that the media has been choosing our candidates for us. Did Dodd, Biden, or Kucinich ever really have a chance? I don't think it is as "bat-like" blind as you would like to think however. I used to work on a newspaper and God help us if we offended the owner of local car dealership who placed such nice advertising in the paper. The "media" are all just businesses. Take MSNBC. General Electric has a finanicial interest in NBC. Kucinich as been very critical of the collusion of corporate interests with government when those interests profit from the war, as NBC does. Do you really think Kucinich -- even had he been handsome with a baritone -- would have gotten a fair shake from NBC?
However, Obama has still cooperated in the racial smearing of the Clintons. What would have been the high ground? Denouncing it would have been the high ground. However, Mr. Obama is not too fond of denouncing those things which advantage him.
So stuff Bill Clinton said was cherry-picked and spun into race-baiting.
You were smarter than me there. I had actually worried that maybe Bill had been doing a little dog whistling and I had been quite concerned. However, I think The New Republic article puts it all in perspective for me. Bill Clinton may be a bit of a hound dog, but he is no racist. I urge people to read the article. As excellent writing, I rather sniff at it. It is not. However, as a reasonable explanation of what has been going on, I agree with its author. What he lacks in in style, he makes up for in substance.
Guess what? Much of what any of us say, while factually correct, could be turned into sexual innuendo, anti-Semitic, racial rage. Hitler was actually a really well-organized man who had charisma. See what I mean? Play that on MSNBC two days in a row and tell me I'm not seen as anti-Semitic.
Actually no. These days, in this current climate, they would think you were anti-Obama. You might even be attacked as trying to lay a nuanced racial critique on Obama as the organized charisma man who is about to carry us off in a fairy tale to arrive at fascism in America.
The problem is that almost any criticism of Obama is characterized as racist. Take cocaine for instance. We have discussed the drug use of candidates for many years now. Reasonable people have argued that George Bush is a dry drunk and former addict who still (though sober) displays the behavior of an alcoholic. I think it is legitimate to examine this issue. Please tell me why we are somehow not supposed to mention Obama's admitted use of cocaine? Is something he acknowledged and discussed and which probably actually encouraged the sales of his book something we are now not supposed to mention?
My point is that the Clintons have always attracted a nasty press, and there's no doubt that's played into this campaign. Clinton supporters are rightfully frustrated but in my opinion don't see the forest for the trees. The press is not going away any time soon. If Clinton becomes President, this sort of thing will happen 24/7. So, for all you Clinton fans, this knot in your stomach, this bile in your throat, this bitter feeling of being wronged--on the Clintons' as well as your own behalf: Do you like this feeling? Do you want this feeling for 8 more years? That exact feeling made me sick in the last years of Bill Clinton's term. Who the hell wants to live like that?
I am sorry but I just have absolutely no sympathy for this position. It is a form of cowering from the very reality that we should be confronting. Are we going to let the media destroy viable candidates just because they can? The fact that the Clintons get bad press is worth looking at from the standpoint of who now owns and controls the media. By no stretch of the imagination can it be called "the liberal press" anymore. It is a hydra-headed monster of corporate priviledge. Just like every single branch of our government, it has been corrupted by the right. It is at our peril that we let it do our picking for us.
To reiterate my major point: that there was misinterpretation about race in this campaign doesn't mean that Obama was behind it.
I believe the Obama campaign was behind much of it. I believe it is actually part of their plan. I don't think one can look at what a campaign co-chair does (Jesse Jackson Jr., the bad seed) as being outside the campaign itself.