Longform Links - Hillary Clinton Comment Fallout Edition
Washington Post - The Card Clinton is Playing
Lower-income white Democrats may well defect to John McCain in the fall if Obama is the nominee, Clinton is arguing, whereas African Americans — who have been choosing Obama by 9 to 1 — are going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what. Thus, she claims, she can better knit the party back together.
Let’s examine those premises. These are white Democrats we’re talking about, voters who generally share the party’s philosophy. So why would these Democrats refuse to vote for a nominee running on Democratic principles against a self-described conservative Republican? The answer, which Clinton implies but doesn’t quite come out and say, is that Obama is black — and that white people who are not wealthy are irredeemably racist.
The other notion — that Clinton could position herself as some kind of Great White Hope and still expect African American voters to give her their enthusiastic support in the fall — is just nuts. Obama has already won a majority of the Democratic primary contests; within a couple of weeks, he almost certainly will have won a majority of the pledged convention delegates and will be assured of finishing with more of the popular vote. Only in Camp Clinton does anyone believe that his supporters will be happy if party leaders tell him, in effect, “Nice job, kid, but we can’t give you the nomination because, well, you’re black. White people might not like that.”
Clinton’s sin isn’t racism, it’s arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama’s success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton’s year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media’s darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama.
“It’s still early,” Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down.
The New York Times - Sen. Clinton and the Campaign
There is a lot of talk that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now fated to lose the Democratic nomination and should pull out of the race. We believe it is her right to stay in the fight and challenge Senator Barack Obama as long as she has the desire and the means to do so. That is the essence of the democratic process.
But we believe just as strongly that Mrs. Clinton will be making a terrible mistake — for herself, her party and for the nation — if she continues to press her candidacy through negative campaigning with disturbing racial undertones. We believe it would also be a terrible mistake if she launches a fight over the disqualified delegations from Florida and Michigan.
Talking Points Memo - Pretty Black and White
Race has been the subtext of much of Hillary’s argument for her own electability. But now she’s thrown it right out there in the open: Obama can’t win because he’s black. Vote for me instead.
You don’t have to believe that Hillary’s a racist (I don’t) to conclude that a combination of the rigors of the campaign trail and her own powerful ambitions have clouded her judgment and curdled her spirit. It has certainly soured what had been a historic relationship between the Clintons and the black community.
Hers is not an appeal we’d tolerate from a Republican candidate, nor should we from a Democrat, no matter how sterling her progressive credentials might otherwise be.
Salon - Was Hillary Channeling George Wallace?
Citing an Associated Press analysis “that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me,” she went on to say: “There’s a pattern emerging here.”
There is indeed a pattern emerging — and it is a pattern that must dismay everyone who admires the Clintons and has defended them against the charge that they are exploiting racial divisions.
As Sean Wilentz and others have argued, there was no ugly subtext to her innocuous remark about the different roles of Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Baines Johnson in the civil rights crusade, although several prominent Obama supporters promoted that smear. And if Bill Clinton’s comparison of Obama and Jesse Jackson was badly timed and clumsy, that too fell within the bounds of acceptable commentary. Indeed, the discussion of ethnic and racial voting preferences is not only fair but unavoidable and utterly mundane in American politics.
But this time she violated the rhetorical rules, no doubt by mistake. It was her offhand reference to “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans” that raises the specter of old Dixie demagogues like Wallace and Lester Maddox. Was she dog-whistling to the voters of Kentucky and West Virginia?
While I still cannot believe she actually intended any such nefarious meaning, she seemed to be equating “hard-working Americans” with “white Americans.” Which is precisely what Wallace and his cohort used to do with their drawling refrain about welfare and affirmative action. This is the grating sound of Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy, even though Tricky Dick would never quite stoop to saying such things in public.
New York Times - The Fight Stuff
Most telling line:
But while the commentators have been tut-tutting, Senator Clinton has been converting white males, assuring them that she’s come into their tavern not to smash the bottles, but to join the brawl.
Washington Post Stumped Blog - Drop Out Already, Hillary
The bigger reason I am not going to play your game is that I am tired of Clinton supporters trying to find some new formula, any formula, that could justify her continuation in the race, and would prevent those of us in the media from having to acknowledge that the fight is over (alas, no brokered convention, the el dorado for all political junkes), forcing us to go back to our miserable pre-primaries lives.
The Clinton quest for “new math” is getting comical. In a race that everyone understands is about accumulating delegates, she wants us to focus on anything but that metric. She’s won the big states! She’s carrying older states! She’s carrying the less-educated-whites vote! She’s doing well in hard-to-spell states! She’s carrying states where Obama was not on the ballot! She’d win in China! If you took the number of people who voted for each candidate and multiplied it by Pi, then attributed to Hillary all votes won by her husband in 1996, she would win!
Then there is the core hypocrisy at the heart of the Clinton campaign, a hypocrisy she cannot reconcile. She says she is still in this because she wants every last Democrat in every last state — including Michigan and Florida — to have his or her say. Then, when that glorious democratic process ends on the sunny isle of Puerto Rico, she wants to have superdelegates overturn the will of the people.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Treacle wrote:
It’s becoming clearer and clearer that Clinton believes she is –entitled– to the democratic presidential nomination…and that is all kinds of not okay.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 8:07 am ¶
Lloyd Webber wrote:
This is a crystallization of her “electability” argument that she’s been making all along. The terrible thing is that she has poisoned the minds of her supporters and created a self fulfilling prophecy.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 8:52 am ¶
Celeste wrote:
I was originally for Clinton but she lost my support with this race baiting foolishness.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 10:11 am ¶
Mogs wrote:
“Clinton’s sin isn’t racism, it’s arrogance. ”
Arrogance, and classism. Does she really think she can get away with implying (and it’s a fairly obvious implication) that poor white people are all racists? Evidently she does. Pray God she’s wrong.
Oh, and I second what Treacle just said.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 11:32 am ¶
All-American Girl wrote:
Obviously, racialicious is pro-Obama, but the appeal to the false authority of the increasingly right-leaning NYTimes is a bit disheartening. But no matter! Let’s hop on the bandwagon! Because clearly, Hillary Clinton and Jesse Helms are two peas in a pod.
Sigh. Odd how we avoid politics on this blog unless it’s to bash Clinton. (And, yes, I do understand that the personal is political.)
Clinton has every right to stay in the race. And I have every right to vote for her on election day, whether she is the Democratic Party’s chosen candidate or not. I’ll be writing in Clinton if Obama is the DP’s choice. (Even I’m not so crazy as to defect to McCain.)
Posted 10 May 2008 at 11:34 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
All-American Girl -
Which Times piece do you refer to? The editors of the paper endorsed Clinton…the first link is them still supporting, but expressing their concerns.
The second piece is also pro-Hillary, saying that she’s a fighter in the face of adversity.
As I said in my last piece, I hope Hillary does stay in the race until the end. That way, Barack will beat her on all fronts.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 11:37 am ¶
macon d wrote:
What I find “odd,” All-American Girl, is your refusal to see that if there’s any bashing going on here, or on other racially conscious blogs or news outlets, it’s because Clinton has become downright racist. As the earlier link here to Reappropriate puts it so well, she’s basically reduced herself to arguing, pretty openly, that she should be elected because she’s white.
Yes, of course, Clinton does “have every right to stay in the race,” but don’t you think she should be called out for playing the race card?
Posted 10 May 2008 at 12:46 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:
@ AAG: If Hillary Clinton cared about the Democratic Party or, indeed about the country, she would have gracefully ended her campaign some time ago. At the best of times she is a polarizing figure and rather than working within the party to prove her value and build capital she has staked everything on this candidacy bid. Surely, even a Clinton supporter can see that is a terrible misstep. If she continues she will damage Obama’s campaign (only time will tell if that damage will prove fatal) and her own political future. These are the far-ranging implications of her “electability” argument.
As far as her recent racial comments are concerned: the other shoe of her campaign has finally dropped. Now can all the deluded black/brown/beige/peach folks who love her to death finally rub the sleep from their eyes and realize that hell yes, she is going to go there (When she says “white” that does not include you Latino voters!). And she is going to take you with her. And that is not going to work out for you.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 1:00 pm ¶
Manju wrote:
actually, latoya…you reacted to all-american girl as if she said the nytimes is pro-obama. she didn’t, rather she said “increasingly right-leaning.”
ergo, the nytimes is pro-hillary, who has clearly run to the right of obama. in fact, the clintons legacy is, like tony blair, to show how liberalism can survive in this age of triumphant capitalism. clinton gave us welfare reform, nafta, and wall st friendly policies coupled with disciplined fiscal conservatism.
this is their legacy, and it is a good one.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 1:20 pm ¶
Sarah J wrote:
All-American Girl,
Can you please explain WHY you would vote for Hillary Clinton even if she loses the nomination?
I’m not going to give that line about how it’s your duty to vote for a Democrat who doesn’t live up to your beliefs, but really, what’s wrong with Obama that makes him so bad you’d write in a protest vote?
I voted for Nader in 2000, I’m absolutely not trying to cast stones, but I genuinely want to know why Hillary supporters are willing to go that far, and I don’t know any, personally, who are.
Posted 10 May 2008 at 1:51 pm ¶
Manju wrote:
i’ve long thought, as i suppose most of you here did, that clinton’s argument; “obama can’t win.” was a code for “obama can’t win b/c he’s black,” a sort of self-fulfilling form or racism.
Well, as the clinton campaign’s becomes more desperate, this suspicion has proven to be correct, and not just b/c of clinton’s most recent interview. but just listen to carole simpson:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sBEz4k-VoVY
Posted 10 May 2008 at 3:21 pm ¶
thesciencegirl wrote:
Amy Poehler is skewering Clinton on SNL right now. It’s fantastic. She’s giving the reasons why she should be the candidate.
“1. I’m a sore loser.
2. My supporters are racist.
3. I have no ethical standards.”
ha ha ha
Posted 10 May 2008 at 10:35 pm ¶
allheavens wrote:
HRC has run a terrible campaign, misstep after misstep. And yes, Treacle that “sense of entitlement” as turned around and smacked her right in the ass.
At the beginning of her campaign she underestimated the caucus states and guess what it was the caucus states that gave Obama his lead. I live in Texas believe me the “Texas Two-Step” is a dream killer.
She was willing to pander to the citizens of Ohio touting her four-point plan to fix NAFTA, honey that horse is out of the barn, the field, hell the county good luck getting it back. Now she is playing on the fears of the white working-class in a desperate attempt to save the nomination for herself.
If were a West Virginian I would be insulted. But; hey, West Virginia has the highest KKK membership per capita than any other state and believe me this is not lost on HRC or her handlers.
Peggy Noonan called it right in her op-ed, Yeah I know she is Satan’s spawn but she is still right. HRC is behaving like a three-year-old who having not gotten her way is willing to destroy the party and damage Obama to shore up her chances at a successful run in 2012.
Even if she takes all the remaining primaries by 75% she still cannot surpass Obama in the delegate count. I know Obama will not have the required 2025 delegates either but he will still have more delegates and more of the popular vote. She is only trying to buy more time to win over super delegates and Obama has cut that lead down to 1.
So tell me what is the point here? Does she really think that “right thinking” white folk will come to their senses and hand her the nomination?
Posted 10 May 2008 at 10:59 pm ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@All-American girl
Obama ran the better campaign; so stop complaining, and suck it up, and in case you didn’t know, read the archived Obama/Clinton threads, so you can get an idea of how it works if you wanna play politics in this sandbox. For the time being, let me hip you to some game.
Rule #1, Latoya is the editor, so when she (or practically any other woman of color for that matter) laments about her reality and of workplace discrimination (Oh, oh, woe is me. I wasn’t promoted because I’m black and young and childless), you have to realize that she’s telling it like it is. However, when Gloria Steinem does the same about being female, it’s oppression olympics. See, because when Latoya laments over workplace discrimination, it’s not to be divisive, or to garner sympathy, or show solidarity with Obama because Latoya knows what it’s like to be young and black. Remember, she’s just telling it like it is. Now Gloria, well, she’s just being divisive, and trying to garner sympathy (champion oppression olympics player that she is) and show solidarity with Clinton. Boo Hiss Gloria. Yea, Yea, Latoya! Got it?
Rule #2 When discussing race as it concerns Obama, try only to discuss it in the context of “attacks” against Barack from Clinton, her surrogates, and the media. See, because if you deviate from the attacks and say, segue into Obama’s race as an asset, it might force people to confront some inconvenient truths, which is why It’s unlikely that you’ll find any posts that are critical about how race plays into Obama’s appeal. You know, like among many whites looking to prove their liberal bonafides and among many non-black POC, who, though they’d be hard pressed to admit it, appreciate Obama’s not being like Sharpton or Jackson or a “typical black”. They like the fact that he’s “multicultural/multiethnic.” And for all you champion code brakers out there (Manju), that’s code for not completely black or a descendant of slaves like most African Americans. But see, we really can’t have that discussion in depth because “it’s devise” and a slippery slope that leads into “he’s not black enough . . . blah, blah, blah,” and it would kind of put a dent in the whole, “Woe is Obama. Race is his weakness and why he’s being picked on” perennial theme around here, but then again, I take that back. There is no “Woe is Obama . . .race/detriment” theme here, because only whites and Clinton supporters play oppression olympics (See Rule#1 Remember, Yea Latoya and Alice Walker. Boo Steinem.) Don’t bother suggesting that both Obama and Hillary exploit their novelty as non-white male others, either. I tried that once, and it didn’t go over too well.
Rule #3 Obama is inherently good, which would put Clinton on the opposite side of the false dichotomy. Now, I know what you’re thinking, but come on now, get real. You can’t be surprised at the Obama good/Clinton bad bias. After all, this is a pro-Obama site. And it’s a really shrewd one, at that, because as often as the editor and others proclaim to want to get past race and express the desire for this contest to be “a battle of ideas not a rehashing of race and gender relations in the United States,” the mandate of this site is to cover the intersection of RACE and popular culture, which means that the one issue that people claim they want to bypass, is the one issue that supplies the content for the forum. What a coincidence! This site has as much of an interest in keeping the race baiting going as Obama himself. So, like I said, because Obama is inherently good, he’s given the benefit of the doubt. Hillary . . . not so much. So when Rev. Wright shows up on tv at the National Press Club, guess who’s fault it is? Apparently not Rev. Wright’s, but Hillary’s of all people.
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/04/30/jeremiah-wrights-press-tour-orchestrated-by-clinton-supporter/
But of course Rev. Wright isn’t to be faulted for his rhetoric anyway. The black church tradition is simply misunderstood. The Clintons, however, are never misunderstood. People around here, always seem to know exactly what they mean, especially when they’re telling the truth (Obama last black man since Jackson to win SC primary). The last politico to be tied to this many conspiracies was Karl Rove.
Posted 11 May 2008 at 12:32 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
Which leads me to my fourth point, not a rule
As an observer of politics, I really tip my hat to you Obama supporters, because this is some ill game you ran on the Clintons. Black people, especially, because you really did the damn thing. In fact, it’s positively Rovian. You all are well aware that by virtue of seniority that the Clintons have been in the civil rights struggle longer than Obama. For crying out loud, Hillary had a Presidentially appointed position as head of the Legal Defense Fund (which provides legal services to low income people) when Obama was still in high school, and this was before Bill was governor. Ask Bobby Seale (the Black Panther whose murder trial Hillary got the ACLU to monitor for civil rights violations when she was in law school) if he thinks Hillary’s racist. Bill Clinton appointed more blacks to cabinet and government positions than any President in history. And for all you Asians, I don’t see any official advisors on his campaign team that look like you, but then again, according to Zoe in the last Obama thread, all he needed to do for some of your support was give some of you a shout out in a stump speech. Hillary led the fight for universal health care and got SCHIP passed. Obama’s resume on the national level, and even arguably in the state senate, in terms of service to POC does not compare to what this woman got done as Bill’s wife, forget as an actual elected official. Hillary’s civil rights record is her strength, and you took that and used it against her to the point where you’ve got the majority of the black community saying that Hillary is not only taking us for granted, but she supposedly never did anything to court us in the first place. Bravo!
You swift-boated Bill’s Presidency better than the GOP ever could, which by the way, was the largest period of economic expansion in US history, and branded them both as racists. Branding Hillary over “coded” speech, a principle that only applies to her when talking about “hard working Americans,” yet allegations of coded speech magically seem to escape Obama surrogates and the media when describing Obama’s “affluent/educated” demographic, but don’t call Obama elitist. No, because that would be racist.
But see, here’s the kicker, when the historians look back on these tactics, they’re not going to call what you did to Hillary, “Rovian.” No, because it’s not completely Rovian, it’s “Obamian,” which is like Rovian, but with a twist. See, Karl Rove doesn’t mince words about his tactics. Was it dirty to undermine a war veteran with three purple hearts? Yes, but he did it because it was necessary to win. No more. No less. He’s honest about his shit. Obama supporters swift-boat people under the veneer of self righteous indignation. You wield race, paranoia (read all of Maju’s comments), and you’ve successfully commandeered the oppression olympics to the point where no one can say boo to you for fear of being politically incorrect or being called racist themselves (Yea Latoya. Boo Gloria). It’s like the N word. Apparently only blacks/POC can use it, and the monopoly POC have on being able to complain without reproach is stronger than the control that Jews supposedly have over “First They Came . . .”
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/05/05/what-kind-of-white-woman-is-hillary-clinton-the-nation-reports-on-the-race-to-the-bottom/#comments
Now, like I said, this whole escapade was bloody brilliant. Ok, I give props where it’s due, but know this. As flawed as the Clintons are, and as shady as you’ve made them out to be, you are no better. This is politics, and like the Clintons, you are not above doing what you think has to be done to win. So, if you all could stop the hypocrisy and the fake moral superiority (Yea Latoya, Boo Gloria), and be honest about yours’, I would really respect you a lot more on this issue. And if there is a God, John McCain will put Condi on the ticket, so I can join in the fun with the majority of my racial demographic and really get my identity politics swerve on. Decode that and Happy Mother’s Day.
Posted 11 May 2008 at 12:33 am ¶
Katie wrote:
Isn’t it irritating when the mainstream media uses “racial” when they mean “racist?”
I mean, there are lots of things that are “racial” that aren’t bad. It’s insulting - as though merely mentioning race makes something racist.
OT, I know, but it…just *irritates* me.
Posted 11 May 2008 at 3:35 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
LCT -
1. What you so kindly termed my “lament” was a discussion of how the person is political, and how something that starts out political (and policy based if you go read the threads I wrote about the race pre-South Carolina) then becomes personal due to the actions of the candidate.
I am not telling all women that they are insane to vote for HRC - merely, this is my experience and this is where things resonated for me. And that post was made in response to many different forums and internet posts that acted like no one had any idea why Clinton suddenly lost her lead in the black vote. Like it was some magic miracle that Barack pulled out some I’m-Black-Dammit powder and we all lined up.
2. Yes, I’m the editor, and if you don’t like it, you can step off. I think I have been MORE than fair with Clinton coverage. My bias is stated - I’m not playing that on the fence game. I also have not published half the shit that gets sent to me because I don’t see what it has to do with HRC and the race. I do publish Hillary Clinton’s discussions of race as well as Barack Obama’s. That’s part of our blog, RACE is the top part of the tagline. I also feel no need to dig up in HRCs background to find damning evidence of whatever the hell she’s done - no point to it as the racial news from her camp comes in everyday. And, as I keep referring to on almost every post when I editorialize about HRC, I started off neutral, like many of my friends. Said actions made me change that position. You can dispute it all you want Tasha, but you don’t get 90% of black people voting in a block for no reason.
3. Condi is probably not going to be on the GOPs ticket. Nor is Bobby Jindal. Whenever they do decide on a McCain (possibly POC) VP, I will happily post my pissed off screed on why the GOP needs to stop kidding themselves. I hope they pick Alan Keyes so I can really have a field day.
4. And where, in all these links, did we call HRC a racist? I posted comment fallout - a round up of news commentators who posted things in the aftermath of HRCs comments. TPM specifically stated they don’t think HRC is racist, but she is playing on racial undertones. And who made excuses for black church culture around here?
5. After all, this is a pro-Obama site. And it’s a really shrewd one, at that, because as often as the editor and others proclaim to want to get past race and express the desire for this contest to be “a battle of ideas not a rehashing of race and gender relations in the United States,” the mandate of this site is to cover the intersection of RACE and popular culture, which means that the one issue that people claim they want to bypass, is the one issue that supplies the content for the forum.
Tasha, please read what I wrote before you misquote me. I said THE ELECTION was supposed to be about ideas and not race and class, and not this forum. Do you really think our blog is starved for content so we need to feverishly mine the election? Not so. We cover shit when it happens, end of story. Sometimes a few days after it happens. And while I love to hear that the election is over (and called for my candidate) that doesn’t look like it’s happening any time soon. In the meantime, we cover all the other stuff you don’t see fit to comment on.
6. We all like Obama, and made references to why in our endorsement post. Now, when are you going to admit that your candidate had a hand in where this election lead and created part of this mess for herself?
Posted 11 May 2008 at 8:49 am ¶
MisoPretty wrote:
I think that the main reason some will vote for Mccain, is that the media has already told themthat they will. The reich-wing media has done a Karl Rovian job of dividing and conquering the democratic party
The bottom line is that low income dems who vote for McCain are republicans and are no different than the self-loathing scaird ta death low income republicans who continue to vote against their own interests.
Posted 11 May 2008 at 9:56 am ¶
allheavens wrote:
lowercase tasha stated:
“@All-American girl
Obama ran the better campaign; so stop complaining, and suck it up, and in case you didn’t know, read the archived Obama/Clinton threads, so you can get an idea of how it works if you wanna play politics in this sandbox.”
Angry much?
Obama DID run a better campaign. Politics is not a game for children or for that matter most grown-ass men and women. Gender bias did not kill HRC’s candidacy but a campaign that was poorly run, under funded, uninspiring and unwilling to make adjustments to correct its underestimation of the electorate (until it was too late) most definitely did.
Hell, how do you blow a 20-point lead when you have the cache of Hillary Clinton? The fact that she did not have this nomination wrapped up against a novice by Super Tuesday means she is a weak general election candidate.
The truth may not be nice and it may not be pretty but it is what it is, the truth. You may not like it or except it but it still stands.
Did gender bias hurt HRC? My answer would be yes; just as being Black as hurt Obama but not to the point of destroying their chances for the nomination.
Obama’s campaign may not have been nice but he was smart enough to keep it “pretty”. I am not about “the pretty” but I am most definitely all over “the smart.”
Accusing this blog, Latoya, the media, Obama or in general this country of damaging HRC’s campaign or Bill Clinton’s legacy as president because of gender bias or painting them as racist is pretty much playing “oppression Olympics” which you seem to detest.
Your statements are distilling a very complicated process into a “simplistic” marathon of gender and racially bias misinformation. You fail in your analysis to give the citizens of this country any credit for critical thinking, You know “critical thinking” the mental processes of discernment, analysis and evaluation.
Politics is gamesmanship at its highest level but you have to play it with finesse. Something that Hillary seems to have forgotten and has paid for it in a very humbling and public manner.
P.S. As for Steinem, if she had written her op-ed ”Women Are Never the Front-Runners” with an inkling of self-awareness or for that matter a little non-linear thinking maybe the blow-back would not have been as harsh.
Posted 11 May 2008 at 12:12 pm ¶
Manju wrote:
“See, Karl Rove doesn’t mince words about his tactics. Was it dirty to undermine a war veteran with three purple hearts? Yes, but he did it because it was necessary to win.”
Actually, I don’t think rove ever admitted taking part in the swift boat attacks, but correct me if i’m worng.
These things are usually done with pausible denial, and palusible denial is, well, plausible. Bush not only left no fingerprints on willie horton, but law and order is in fact a legit subject, as is “states rights” for that matter…as ayone who has studied constitutional law or even hayek’s (not salma) theory as to why communism failed understands.
ergo, the need for decoding.
Posted 11 May 2008 at 12:35 pm ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@Latoya
Did you read my first sentence where I said that Obama ran the better campaign? Ok, Hillary made many mistakes, and Obama ran the better campaign. Is that better? Did I not give credit to Obama supporters and his camp for their tactics? “step off?” Are you serious? I have a sneaking suspicion that “step off” is code for shut up. Didn’t you just tell me that “I always make a case, and to keep it coming?” Make up your mind. Do you want to facilitate discourse or discourage it? And you skated right over my Rule #2. Is that because you are conceding that point, or just because you neglected to address it?
And nobody misquoted you anything. Those were your exact words, no? So it’s ok for others to run with sound bites and interpret and spin Clinton/ supporters words to suit their agenda, but I’m not allowed to do the same with your words to frame my argument? See what I mean about these double standards? I know. I know. There always seems to be a legitimate context for your rhetoric and a seemingly dismissive “oppression olympics” context for Clinton and her ilk. See, this is my theory about the nature of Obamian supporter politics. Self-righteous POC monopoly on complaining without reproach mixed with Rovian swift boating tactics. When I said, “you Obama supporters . . . branding the Clintons as racists” I wasn’t spelling your name specifically. I spelled your name in Rule #1 and used the “yea Latoya/boo Steinem” analogy to further emphasize rule one. I apologize if by doing so, you thought I was singling you out specifically. I was referring to Obama supporters in general, which is why I broke up my comments into two segments in the first place, or are you going to pretend that Clinton and her surrogates haven’t been painted with a racist brush in comments around here? Go back to the Alice Walker thread and read the discourse between myself and Orville. Go back to the original analysis of the NYT Steinem piece.
@all heavens
No, I’m not bitter. I’m also not blind. Everyone has an agenda, including this blog. If the majority of the race storylines revolve around attacks against Obama, and the blog is pro-Obama, then my suggestion that the blog has a vested interested interest in terms of content and seeing Obama succeed is not false. There are other blogs, without discussion that isn’t as in depth as this, for example, several, black gossip blogs, one of which is vehement in it’s anti-Clinton coverage, and if you read the comments, it’s the same “The Clintons are racist . . .” mantra time and time again, so if my analysis in explaining how blogs with pro-Obama agendas have perpetuated or facilitated or contributed to “Clintons are racist” rhetoric and have played a role in Hillary’s demise, then perhaps it’s just that, simple. I never even said that Obamanian supporter race tactics were completely to blame for her failure. Of course, she made mistakes, but like I said, I’m not blind, and I’m tired of the Machiavellian tactics veiled under the guise of self-righteousness, when at the end of the day, it’s as you said, finesse and politics.
Everything’s always seems so complex, until the discussion revolves around why specific white voters or Hispanics or whichever racial/socio-economic demographic isn’t falling for Obama. And anyway, didn’t you just make that backhanded comment feigning concern for West Virginians, saying that they should be insulted on the one hand for Hillary’s supposedly playing on their fears, yet link them to KKK, the next? See what I mean about the self-righteousness, when in reality, it’s petty politics? Yeah, whatever. You’re only proving my point. Anyway, I’m out. I’m going to “Glow in the Dark” Tour
Posted 11 May 2008 at 2:13 pm ¶
allheavens wrote:
@tasha
I did not call you bitter but you are angry.
The definition of self-righteous: when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others.
You have the right to your opinions and I have the right to mine. But you can’t be intolerant of others opinions all the while accusing them of the same.
If I were a racist, hood wearing, cross burning, card carrying member of the KKK and a resident of West Virginia I would still be insulted.
I did not feign concern for the voters in West Virginia they are adults are they not?
What I stated that the many citizens of West Virginia are members of the KKK which is a fact and that fact is not lost on HRC OR HER HANDLERS.
I did not state that all residents of West Virginians are racist or that HRC is racist but I believe that she is playing on their fears. Just MY opinion.
Posted 11 May 2008 at 5:40 pm ¶
cvalda wrote:
tasha:
“Finesse and politics”? “Machavellian tactics”?
Dude, she said “I get hard-working white voters and that’s what matters.”
It is not finesse, politics, terrifying Orwellian spin to say that’s a bit dodgy.
Try and imagine Obama, especially post-Wright, saying he gets black voters and they’re a strong Democrat base, so it’s all that really counts.
Yes, this blog is pro-Obama. Shocking. But you really don’t have to spin this one…
Posted 11 May 2008 at 6:25 pm ¶
Persia wrote:
Obviously, racialicious is pro-Obama, but the appeal to the false authority of the increasingly right-leaning NYTimes is a bit disheartening. But no matter! Let’s hop on the bandwagon! Because clearly, Hillary Clinton and Jesse Helms are two peas in a pod.
So when people who aren’t as bad as Jesse Helms say something objectionable, we’re supposed to shrug it off, because they could have said something worse? Please.
Posted 11 May 2008 at 7:45 pm ¶
MistressBeatz wrote:
I dismissed HRC’s comments when I first read them. I assumed she was quoting the results of polls. What poll, who took it, and the questions asked, I didn’t bother looking into. Not voting for her anyway . But my take on the response in the media and what I am hearing/reading is no different than what happened with Reverend Wright. Taken out of context. I didn’t hear anything he said that the majority of the good citizens in America aren’t thinking/speaking.
So my questions, does aknowledging that one has the support of a “racist” group of people make one racist? Or a realist? Does quoting the Iraqi Ambassador make one unpatriotic? Or a realist?
Why is one action more important than the sum of a lifetime of actions?
Finally, just how effective of a leader will either Obama or HRC be if they can’t wrestle control from the media the terms of how this election process will be conducted/perceived? Haven’t both relented to the “handlers”? The media has so thoroughly corrupted the information business, I think fear/paranoia has overwhelmed the candidates, as well as the American citizenry.
Posted 11 May 2008 at 10:29 pm ¶
J wrote:
@lowercase tasha
I was another person who told you I appreciated your posts and now I really wish that I hadn’t. I don’t know what happened between today and whenever that other post was, but your tone has changed from making some interesting arguments to just angry ranting.
I’m not going to bother with a point by point refutation of your “rules”; the swiftboating Bill part in particular is just bizarre and incoherent, so I’m just going to address your point about the oppression olympics. You claim that there is a double standard at work because LaToya is allowed to complain about racial discrimination but Steinem was not extended the same courtesy when it came to gender discrimination. I don’t think that is fair or accurate. First of all, it misrepresents what the conflict was about. If you remember the thread on the phrase “oppression olympics”, it’s usually defined as when someone claims that one form of discrimination (usually the one most relevant to their experiences) is more important than another. People were upset because Steinem was explicitly making the argument that gender discrimination was a more pervasive issue than racial discrimination. No one ever said that Steinem had no right to complain about gender discrimination, or that gender discrimination wasn’t a problem.
I think Racialicious (and Latoya since you seem so insistent on singling her out) is doing a good job dealing with race and gender and this election. The point isn’t to focus on race above all else, which is why there are posts on race and class, race and gender, etc. It’s absurd to accuse them of perpetuating myths about racism in this election because the blog is about race (just as it would be if someone made a similar accusation about feministing and hillary).
Posted 11 May 2008 at 11:27 pm ¶
Free wrote:
What I find disturbing is that the message coming out of this campaign season is that only working class whites (and poor whites by extension) can be racist. On Sunday morning talk shows: educated whites supporting Obama, working class whites supporting Hillary with a discussion of race as a follow-up is the pattern. But what about educated white Democrats who would rather vote for McCain than Obama? What about McCain’s wealthy supporters? It just seems that the problem of racism is being unfairly pinned onto one segment of society.
Posted 12 May 2008 at 12:14 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@allheavens
but I think there is a certain smugness to it. I don’t think self-righteous was too harsh of a word. I don’t know, maybe we’ll just have to agree to disagree. And if I was really intolerant of differing viewpoints, I wouldn’t visit this blog at all. If you’ve noticed, my viewpoints are often not in line with the majority group think in this forum, but I consider and question those differing viewpoints, none the less.
Posted 12 May 2008 at 12:14 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
lowercase Tasha -
1. The entire tone of your post was sarcastic. How am I to know you meant one line sincerely?
2. You interpreted that right. You always made a case, but this one was a sarcastic, personal attack, which I do not appreciate. And, as I said before, if you have a problem with me editing this blog, virtual door is to the left.
If you were intending to attack an argument, that comment was an epic fail.
3. My apologies. Missquote should have read “willfully misinterpret.” My hopes for the election and my goals with this blog are two different things and I made that clear in the post.
4. Re: Earlier point 2 - and what would be the point of said discussion? It’s fairly obvious that both Clinton and Obama benefited from their statuses in rallying support. However, as most of the conversation has been structured around how one person benefits so much more than the other, there is no benefit to that conversation. As we have seen in past threads, most of those conversations devolve into the oppression olympics. “This is so much worse because…”
5. At this point, not acknowledging that Clinton and her surrogates have played into the creation of this rift with the black community is willfully blind. So, you’re one of the 10% who will look past it/pretend it doesn’t exist - but that shit is unacceptable. Especially with Hillary calling for Barack to reject and denounce Farrakhan, someone he only had a small thread of connection to. Why would she allow her black supporters to undermine her by attacking Barack’s blackness and not distancing herself from those comments? Why would she allow Bill Clinton to run off at the mouth and overshadow her campaign, as he did for the weeks after SC? And why would she, knowing that race has been an ugly undertone in this whole campaign, decide to base her appeal for the candidacy on the working class white (read: racist) vote?
6. If the majority of the race based attacks on Obama are coming from the Clinton camp, guess what we are going to cover? I’s not rocket science. The only place I know we have a gaping lack of coverage is in terms of the GOP, because I don’t watch their news channels or listen to their pundits, so I don’t know what they are saying. We did cover that fake racist email based around a photo of Obama’s family - no link to HRC.
7. Finally, see the above links. (As an aside, I wonder if people are even clicking the links to read the full articles based on some of the responses I get to the del.icio.us links).
I included two links from HRC supporters. No one said shit about those. And I didn’t hear crap about the NYT being biased when they endorsed Hillary. But when I put up their editorial piece on what they hope HRC will stop doing, suddenly they have “false authority?” Come on.
Posted 12 May 2008 at 7:04 am ¶
Persia wrote:
It just seems that the problem of racism is being unfairly pinned onto one segment of society.
Yes and no. I think there’s definitely an implication that only the poor and uneducated can be racist. But I think the other side of that coin is a real subtext about white working-class voters– fetishization is the word I keep using. White working-class voters are the ‘common people,’ the ‘hard working people’ who keep our country going. It’s a nasty little package of anti-intellectualism/anti-elitism, ignoring the contributions of POC, and creating a ’sacred cow’ in politics no one dare attack. It does everyone a disservice.
Posted 12 May 2008 at 8:19 am ¶
Kali wrote:
@lowercasetasha
as an occasional visitor to this blog I have to say that your post made me think.
yours seems to be the rare dissenting voice: therefore valuable . when everyone thinks alike - then no one is thinking very much.
as an uninvolved observer i saw your post in rhetorical vein and not so much as a personal attack.
from my sampling so far, i am surprised at the lack of real dissension and argument in the blogosphere.
[exit virtual door on the left]
Posted 12 May 2008 at 9:02 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
@LCT
I must say that there is something very positive in your passion and support of HRC. I think it always bodes well for democracy when people are inspired, informed and involved.
You are of course, entitled to your opinion. I just want to point out that I will admit my own ignorance in my support of HRC. I was voting for her as a way of getting back Bill Clinton. In my eyes, he could do no wrong.
As I step outside of myself, I find it fascinating how emotionally involved I was with Bill Clinton and the whole of the Clinton legacy. That is why I was so moved by LaToya’s post on
the emotional aspects of voting, especially this campaign.
I would like to invite you to see that your posts have been angry and more importantly, I sensed an air of disappointment. You wanted to see HRC get the nomination and be our next president. I get that you are hurt that it looks really bleak and that someone else marched in and took that dream. You are entitled to your disappointment, but this blog is not responsible for HRC’s loss. Neither is Black America. Neither is the media. The reasons why are varied and nuanced and yes, some of the responsibility lays at the feet of HRC’s campaign.
Posted 12 May 2008 at 6:51 pm ¶
jvansteppes wrote:
Clinton could do no wrong? Hello, welfare reform? The Defense of Marriage Act? Military Humanism? NAFTA? Yes he was 100 times better than Bush but then again, that wasn’t difficult, I would rather have seen a bagel assume office instead [with cream cheese of course].
LCT: Isn’t Alice Walker a Clinton fan? I’m confused on that one. As for Gloria Steinem and her ilk, they’ve done plenty to discredit themselves, they didn’t need Racialicious to step in.
Posted 13 May 2008 at 5:08 am ¶
Bahston wrote:
You know what really gets my goat about HRC’s statement about “hard-working Americans” (which I guess is now synonymous with “white Americans”) is she can say things like that without blinking an eye as if we are all supposed to understand what she is implying here, which is that Obama will never get elected because he is a black man. Is she trying to start a race war? (Seriously, I thought that to myself when I read her comment.)
I think the most pertinent question is why are these “hard-working Americans” voting for her in the first place? She clearly isn’t one of them (108 million is hardly working class). In fact, I think she is using her fear-mongering 3:00 am ad campaign and gas tax coupon (because its literally pennies) to take advantage of their xenophobia and naivete. Doing straight shots of crown royal at a dive bar in Pennsylvania hardly makes her a women of the people. HRC needs to go home and stop with the Tanya Harding antics.
Posted 13 May 2008 at 5:13 am ¶
Marie wrote:
I second Michelle that the emotionalism the Clintons bring out in all Americans is fascinating. I don’t fully understand it and I guess that’s why it works. I never understood the Slick Willy label until this campaign. But that is not so important to me anymore. Nor is whether or not HRC is racist or not the critical issue for me.
The race baiting and gender attacks have really helped to mask that the Democratic Party is only Republican Lite and I would hope that this election encourages all Democrats of whatever color/gender to take a long, critical look at the way the party is run and if it really represents our best interest. So Obama supporters can accuse HRC supporters of racism and HRC supporters can concoct a black/white elite conspiracy but the truth is that Obama and HRC are basically identical on policy - in other words damn near Republicans. And cool that the Republicans exist - I wouldn’t take that from them. They have every right to do their thing. A democracy should have a plurality of voices and perspectives though. Where’s that plurality gone in the US? All this race/gender baiting has distracted from that fact that is barely present.
This isn’t a slam on anyone, or the importance of race and gender. I value those discussions and you all being here helps me think on all of this.
Posted 13 May 2008 at 8:00 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@Michelle
And why, prey tell, do you care if my posts are “angry”? Is that supposed to deter me, sort of like allheavens calling me intolerant (See my point #4 about being called politically incorrect)? Are Obama supporters the only ones entitled to get mad, or is Obama supporters’ anger somehow more justified than mine? You can’t paint me with that donna darko “crazy” brush, so you gonna drag out the “angry” one, instead? Can you click on the last link, below this thread from the “angry black bitch” website, and tell me that’s calm? Did you read the last post on Obama where Latoya said that she was emotionally divorced from Clinton? That’s not at all angry sounding? Yeah, come after me though.
And I’ve explained my stance on how I believe pro-Obama blogs have influenced opinon on how Clinton is supposedly racist and how it contributed to her demise. If there were a series of popular blogs/media outlets perpetuating stories about how Obama is a Muslim fundamentalist sympathizer and every time you turned around and asked around you kept hearing that part of the reason why he lost the nomination was because of rumors and urban legends that he was perceived as a Muslim fundamentalism sympathizer, would you allege that those series of popular blogs/media outlets had nothing to do with contributing to that perception? When the NYT ran the story about McCain’s alleged affair, he was able to squelch those rumors fairly quickly, but it’s not so easy to do if you’re white and are accused of being racist, even when you’re telling the truth (Obama last black man since Jackson to win SC primary). Are people going to give you the benefit of the doubt based on your record, apparently not, based on the majority of what’s buzzing in the bloggisphere. If you don’t agree, fine, but it’s how I feel. Did I say it was the only reason? No. In fact I keep saying that’s not the only reason, even made a lot of valid points in my “angry” diatribe that aren’t being addressed, but if just you just want to latch on to a segment of it, fine with me, but I can play that game too.
@jvansteppes
I never said Clinton could do no wrong. In fact, I specifically said that she and her husband are flawed. What’s usually noticeably absent from these discussions is what Obama’s supposedly going to change if elected. Like welfare is going to be revamped to the way it was before Bill reformed it if Obama gets elected, and gay marriage is going to be legalized across the continental US if he gets into office, and don’t ask/don’t tell is going to be repealed in favor of gays being allowed to be completely open in the military, and a better free trade agreement will magically materialize at Obama’s behest. Do you expect Obama to become protectionist against free trade, as opposed to the “Senator from Punjab” (Hillary)? Tell me, with a straight face, how his whole economic plan isn’t rehashed rhetoric of what Bill was saying in the 90’s. “Investing in new technologies,” blah, blah, blah. Talk about the gaping loophole in his healthcare plan, and how he won’t be able to convince to rich to buy into it. Not that either plan would have gotten past anyway, but at least we know Hillary would’ve went to bat with something ambitious. Unlike Obama, she’s got the track record to back it up. You don’t even know how Obama would have voted on many of the issues you just cited, because he hasn’t been in the US Senate for but two minutes. Go on, bring up how he didn’t vote for the war (cause he wasn’t in the Senate to vote on it), how he gave that speech at the anti-war pep rally (in his district that was anti-war anyway). Maybe he can dig up some more air force generals (dude, we’re in a ground war) to stand at his side to make him look stronger than McCain on national security. How he cares so much about the war effort that he held hearing after hearing in his armed forces subcommittee and got NATO more involved in the effort in Afghanistan. Oh wait, he didn’t. Give me the grand idealistic reason why he didn’t even bother to vote NO if he was so opposed to Kyl-Liberman. Talk about how the bills that he’s passed in the US Senate have had little to no bearing on blacks or other POC. Oh, but given the chance, he’ll lead us all to the promised land right?
That Alice Walker thread was a classic example of what I’m talking about in terms of double standards. I read the initial analysis from the Steinem post, and it had me convinced that Steinem was ignoring race too, until I read the excerpts from the Walker speech. Walker was applying the same tricks that Steinem was admonished for previously, and right off the bat, Walker was getting kudos, at which point, I was like, no, this isn’t right, and I’m not falling for it this time. Both camps and their official and unofficial media propaganda outlets are running game, except one side (Obama’s) seems particularly fond of claiming the moral high ground than the other. In her speech, Walker was talking about how Clinton, unlike Obama, couldn’t be the force for change, and rather than attribute Clinton’s alleged ineptitude for affecting change to her last name being Clinton, or her ties to big business or the special interest, Walker bypassed all of that, and went for the jugular, and said that Clinton couldn’t be the force for change because she was a white woman. But don’t you worry, because now that Obama’s won the nomination, and he’s running against a white man, you really will have the monopoly on the oppression olympics. So, wield it well.
Posted 13 May 2008 at 8:13 am ¶
Marie wrote:
Ok, I’m back and I feel a rant coming on. I am actually really fed up with the Democratic Party because this point in time was prime for doing some serious damage to the Republican neo-liberal agenda and they squandered it with stupid race/gender infighting. But, and I am going to sound like a conspiracy theorist, I guess that serves them will because it did successfully draw attention away from the fact that they are not challenging Republican ideology in any sincere way because they share in that same neo-liberal ideology (there’s is just softer). So we can all go around congratulating ourselves for being members of a party with physical diversity but does it really matter when the party just sucks and is selling all of our ideals down the river? It doesn’t matter for me. Rant over.
Posted 13 May 2008 at 8:28 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@Marie - Props for the shortest, most coherent rant ever.
@ LCT -
Did you read the last post on Obama where Latoya said that she was emotionally divorced from Clinton? That’s not at all angry sounding?
Shouldn’t have sounded that way. I was feeling “resigned sadness” when I wrote it.
And if you, LCT, wanted to write about why HRC spoke to you as a candidate and what in her campaign resonated with you, so be it. And as a matter of fact, we would be happy to post it, as is my standing offer for people who disagree with what I’ve said. However, you would need to show the same consideration in your piece that I showed for HRC supporters. I didn’t bash your candidate, say she was delusional or call her the anti-Christ - one would hope that y’all could do the same.
and every time you turned around and asked around you kept hearing that part of the reason why he lost the nomination was because of rumors and urban legends that he was perceived as a Muslim fundamentalism sympathizer
Nice timing. I have a post to put up about the NY Times publishing an Op-Ed claiming that Islam will declare war on us if Obama becomes president.
Posted 13 May 2008 at 8:51 am ¶
lowercase tasha wrote:
@Latoya
I feel like it’s groundhog day. To be honest, I don’t think I’d be saying anything different from what I’ve been writing all along, anyway. We’re all just talking in circles, and at this point, the dem nom is sewn up. Maybe I can argue pro-McCain? That way it’ll force me to do research and not just vote for Obama, just because. I’m actually writing something for you that has nothing to do with politics. Something I don’t think has been on this site, something in the vein of what Wendi would write.
Posted 13 May 2008 at 10:31 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
@ LCT -
Hahahah - I would love to see you argue Pro-McCain. But could you do it convincingly? That’s a hell of a challenge. I like to think I have debate skills, but damn…that’s a tough one.
How about you think about arguing how voting a third party if you aren’t satifisfied with the chosen nom is not a waste of a vote. I think that one might be more interesting to explore.
Cool, you can drop your piece to latoya@racialicious.com
Posted 13 May 2008 at 10:35 am ¶
Eric Daniels wrote:
Isn’t it ironic and juicy that the only Americans who “KEEP IT REAL” according to the press and Hillary are “WHITE RURAL/ETHNIC VOTERS” these are the ones with ….
1. Questionable Music taste
2. High Degree of crime and addiction
3. loose morals
4. Don’t value Education
5. Have shows like “Rock of Love”
6. out of wedlock births
7. Are easily lead by People like Rush, HRC
8. Are the most racist
9. Will vote monolithically
10. Tied to their religion and homophobic
11. totally sexist and anti- Jewish
Does that sound familiar folks !!! but like Chris Rock said, since it’s white it’s all right and won’t be challenged because they are 75% percent of the White American population so they are the SALT OF THE EARTH !!!! Where’s Bill Cosby when you need him.
Posted 14 May 2008 at 9:43 am ¶