Letters to the Editor
-
@Katetex
I agree. Much like the myth that Obama ran "unopposed" in his first state senate campaign. The man who faults Hillary's super delegate strategy is the same man who had his lawyers file and successfully pull his opponents off the ballot including the incumbent... And yet its a story that never was brought up when he was urging us all to trust voter's choices. I mean he won his first seat by not trusting the voters to choose him in an all out election, what more needs to be said?
-
Well the media certainly has and Obama is happy to play along
It is about the issue which dare not utter its own name. Of course it is.
-
i think WILENTZ is on drugs...
that's all. carry on...
-
The history professor, much like his candidate, may soon be "history" as well
And it can't come quick enough for my liking. I have a subscription to TNR and there's usually some in-depth pieces that are heavy on fact without such a heavy reliance on opinion such as this latest Clinton apologist's hit piece on Obama. There's been several detailed articles on Obama in the last few months in TNR and they were objectively written. Michelle Cottle put out a very in-depth look at the morale problems in Clinton's campaign and predicted that a top advisor was likely to get fired weeks before Patti Solis Doyle was let go, so there's certainly good reporting to be found there. Anybody who's really paid attention to TNR for any significant length of time would know that many of it's subscribers are convinced that it's chief editor, Martin Peretz, has it out for Clinton if they ever bothered to read the feedback letters to THE SPINE.
This Princeton historian's rant may have been allowed to run in part so Peretz can put to rest any notion that TNR hasn't allowed Clinton die-hards any chance to make thier case. He'd have every reason not to waste any further TNR space on one of Clinton's cheerleaders again if what this Ivy League flack offered up is the best case Clinton supporters can make against Obama. It's simply astounding how much denial there is among the Clinton establishment and it's most feverish believers. After having to put up with watching Clinton repeatedly play not only the race card, but the sex card, media card, and the victim card how many times over in this campaign, I'm surprised there would be any cards left in the deck for Obama to have a race card to even use at this point.
It's probably beyond sour grapes for some of these guys like the professor. For some of them like him that hitched thier wagon to Clinton's candidacy, it's probably to big of a blow in thier circles to have to admit that the horse that they bet on to glide to the nomination is in danger of losing in what many consider a less than graceful or dignified manner. And I though Paul Begala on CNN was pouting. Clearly he's not alone.
-
Righto
Please. It comes down to this: she voted for the war when 23 of her colleagues, in the Senate, saw what anyone "least enabled," research-wise, could see: The war--and especially the would-be implement, George Bush, of the force resolution--was bogus. She backed it; Obama, in the midst of a run up to a senate race, amidst paroxysms of [misguided] patriotism, publicly didn't. That's the way the die rolls.
The courageous way would have been for Clinton have bucked the patriotic fervor and commit to a moral and commonsense position, rather than "triangulate" her chances.
She, thinking nothing of possible strains on our treasury and army and/or the average Iraqi and how this thing might disrupt their lives, bet the farm.
It appears as if she's all but lost the ol' homestead.
-
Ridiculous Hyperbole
Perhaps Sean Wilentz has been in the ivory tower too long. His ferocious attack is ridiculous and uniformed. It is clear that the Clintons have been using every trick they can muster in their efforts, with race-baiting only being one angle. Can Obama ever win on the race issue? If he mentions it, he is playing the race card. If he ignores it, other people bring it up for him.
-
Regarding "Reality" Counts
You have a warped reality and an extremist's mentality. Can you give us some more tantalizing tabloid exerpts from the secret stores of the repositors of reliable reality from the insaniac inner sanctums of the illuminati? You are an insipid twit. You read racism into what it is convenient for you to read racism into. In this case the ressurection and resucitation of a flogged to fucking death failed bid by Hillary Clinton to become president of the United States. Hillary blew it all by her lonesome, so don't go looking for little green men to explain things away.
-
Wilentz has it right
"...Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign."
"It" referring to the newborn myth of the Clintons' newfound racism. I fail to see what's so outrageous about Wilentz's conclusion here. He's obviously writing out of anger and frustration, but hey, he's speaking for a whole lot of voters who feel they've been all but bound and gagged.
-
@melthough
Could you provide me examples of how the Clinton campaign used charges of sexism against the Obama campaign? I gave three, so I guess that's a good number.
-
Oh come the hell on
Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton make racial statements about Jesse Jackson and LBJ and MLK and Sen Obama is to blame.
Oh come the hell on!
Come on!
-
one more thing...
you know what they say! "paranoia will destroy ya!"
i don't know what color the sky is on wilentz's planet, but this article is pretty tortured logic to me.
it really leaves a person wondering what the definition of "is" IS...
people are very sick of this re-framing of reality game. we all saw the same stuff, and made up their OWN minds about what we saw. and speaking for myself, i can smell revisionist history a mile away.
i know what i saw, and i know what i heard, and i'm sorry. but the sky isn't purple in my world.
-
The answer to the title line of this article is YES. A resounding YES!
I wonder how many people who are chiming in here have actually read the Wilentz article at The New Republic ????? It has always struck me as rather amazing the way so many Obama supporters are willing to begin commenting on issues without getting the facts.
I actually read Wilentz's article. Until I had read it, I had wondered why on earth Bill Clinton would race bait in South Carolina where it could only hurt his wife when he did so. I thought that he might have, but I could never make any sense to it. I actually read the transcript of the interview several times and wondered if Bill was getting Alzheimer's or something. Now that I have read the way Wilentz details that incident, I understand. I now believe that I was wrong. Bill Clinton never intended any race baiting by mentioning Jesse Jackson's earlier win in South Carolina. I have been so wrong. I thought I couldn't be suckered but I was. The fact is that if Bill Clinton was going to race bait, that it would make no sense to do so in South Carolina in the primary! It would only make sense in a general election where one could play upon the racial prejudices of Southern whites -- those types who no longer vote in Democratic primary elections.
I urge everyone to actually read the Wilentz article which lays out clearly the Obama strategy to play upon the fears of black people and the sympathies of white people.
And one more thing, if you don't want to read it, but you want to start trashing me, who actually did bother to read it, go to it but don't expect any replies from me.
I am done with illogical people in these threads.