Would you prefer it coded? by Billy Goat (4.00 / 2) #4 Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:01:13 PM EST
Like in the Obama ad where, over the strains of "Sing Low Sweet Chariot," Jesse Jackson Jr. says "A lot of politicians call themselves our friends. But Obama has a heart that beats for our community. And he’s dedicated his life to the struggle."

If you're going to play the race card, why not just do it openly and get it over with? This proxy stuff is for cowards.

[ Parent ]

You think that's baiting? by lm (2.00 / 0) #5 Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:19:39 PM EST
I think there's a substantial difference between the statement 'Candidate X is good for Community Y' and `Community Y votes for Candidate X because Candidate X is a Z' or `Only Candidate X can get votes from Community Y.'

Feel free to differ.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

You think that's quoting? by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #6 Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:31:18 PM EST
Nobody said only Candidate X could get votes from community Y. Clinton said that the white, work class, non-college voters support her strongly. That's a crucial constituency for creating national Dem coalition.

This is like the "gotcha" crap Obama faced after the "bitter" comment. He said something true, if he worded it poorly, and everybody tried to turn it into some vast generalization that proved he's an elitist. Now Clinton points out that she's doing better in a demographic Democrats badly need and suddenly she's a race baiting Klan-member.

I will retract my statement if you can find Clinton saying that white working class people will only vote for a white person. As she's already admitted that she thinks Obama could beat McCain (Pennsylvania debate), I think you'll have a hard time finding your smoking gun.

[ Parent ]

Like I said, feel free to differ by lm (2.00 / 0) #7 Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:08:13 PM EST
Clinton's words were ``Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again.''

I don't think it's doing any injustice to her words. I don't think that's taking them out of context. I don't think that is playing `gotcha.' In context, the plain sense of her words is that she thinks that Obama is weak at winning the votes of white folk. This is the same line that's been coming from Ickes, Feraro, Clinton's spouse and other Clinton surrogates.

Further, I think this is different in kind than the commercial you quoted from which speaks to being a long standing supporter of a given community.

Feel free to differ.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

You feel that her quote . . . by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #8 Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:47:00 PM EST
"Senator Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again."

Is the same as saying . . .

"Only candidate Clinton can get votes from white folks."

Because the wording looks pretty different to me. The first, when she said it, was true. The second, when I wrote it, was something I had to make up because nobody has ever said it.

Further, you're fooling yourself if you can't see that the reference to Obama's race is implicit in the contrast between "politicians who call themselves our friends" and somebody who has a "heart that beats for our community." That's not a reference of support; that's a reference of membership.

If Clinton said she could deliver the female vote, you'd poop kittens over her naked sexism. Obama tells the Associated Press that "I guarantee you African-American turnout, if I'm the nominee, goes up 30 percent around the country - minimum" (1/20/08) and you don't bat an eye.

I should add that this isn't some random surrogate who said these things either. The ad, as all of Obama's ads are, is capped with a helpful reminder that he, Obama, supports this message. The ad comes from his camp and he signed off on it. The quote about delivering the black vote is from the man himself.

I look forward to your denunciation of Obama's naked racist campaign tactics.

[ Parent ]

That should read "nakedly racist." by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #9 Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:53:12 PM EST
I don't think you should denounce his naked campaign tactics. I think you can all agree that his naked campaign tactics should bring the lady vote running.

[ Parent ]

Fooling myself by lm (2.00 / 0) #14 Tue May 13, 2008 at 09:10:22 AM EST
me: this is my reading, I think reasonable people can disagree.

you: you're deluded at best, deceiving at worst.

I think it clear which of us is deluding himself.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

I think reasonable people can disagree. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST
But I also think reasonable people can sometimes run into delusional people who refuse to see that the standards they're holding their own candidate too are significantly lower than the standards they apply to other candidates, especially when it comes to race and gender politics.

The last time you attacked Clinton, you demanded proof that Obama misrepresented her plan. I gave you an ad Obama approved that took criticism of McCain's plan and passed it off as valid criticism of Clinton's plan.

You failed to respond.

Now you claim Clinton is disgusting in her appeals to identity politics.

I've presented you with two appeals by Obama to the sort of identity politics that you find so objectionable when Clinton does them.

You've denied that the first instance is an example (though you seem to be alone on this), but you don't mention Obama's explicit claim to be able to deliver the black vote for Dems.

Again, you've failed to show why Obama's behavior is acceptable, but Clinton's is beyond the pale.

Reasonable people can disagree. But that's not what's happening here. You're ignoring facts, spinning Clinton's comments, and whitewashing - if you'll forgive the unintentional pun - Obama's own campaign behavior.

What, exactly, is reasonable about your position?

[ Parent ]

Because I'm tired of going around in circles by lm (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:38:19 AM EST
``I've presented you with two appeals ''

Right, and I've responded as to why I see a difference between the appeals are being made. You don't see those differences. That's fine. I'm not attacking you for not seeing the same thing I do.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

it is by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #10 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:09:38 AM EST
just a symbol of Clinton's desperation. Her campaign is running on fumes.

That ad is race baiting, sure, but nationally Obama has had to kiss a lot of white ass, especially in the wake of "pastor gate." With most of the country being white and the default voting style being "from the gut" he doesn't have much choice.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

I agree that Clinton's running on fumes. by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #12 Tue May 13, 2008 at 06:38:01 AM EST
Her persistence is bizarre. I've heard no good theories to explain her continued efforts.

I disagree, though, that this is new phase for Obama. He was promising Dems to bring in the black vote as early as January of this year, well before having explain the irrelevant rantings of Wright to the scandal hungry media.

I'm just trying to point to what I feel is a double standard. When Clinton calls a group of female voters the backbone of her campaign (and they are, women have strongly supported her campaign throughout), she's playing slimy identity politics. When Obama overtly appeals to the race of black voters, he's "got no choice."

I don't see the difference.

[ Parent ]

double standards by MillMan (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:42:23 PM EST
I think Hilary has had a slightly easier go-round with the media during this campaign. But not by much. I won't offer evidence though. They've both been slapped around a lot.

When I'm imprisoned as an enemy combatant, will you blog about it?
[ Parent ]

I saw some data from the Pew Center . . . by Billy Goat (2.00 / 0) #18 Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:46:19 PM EST
Clinton got more coverage in total, but a slightly higher percentage of the coverage was negative. But we're talking just a couple of percentage points of difference.

Curiously, when asked during the same period, Americans of both political persuasions thought they noticed Obama got overwhelmingly more press, a vast majority of it positive. I don't know what to make of that. Suggests an interesting split between what the media coverage & spin and the public opinion it supposedly shapes.

[ Parent ]

People tend to notice things that are new by lm (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:14:21 PM EST
Obama is newer to the political scene, hence people notice him more than they do Clinton whose been in the national news in one form or another for 16+ years.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password: