Comments on: Is the press constructing Clinton’s Campaign as the arch typical Hysterical Woman?

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:14:26 +0000

Ana, while chewing my way through the TNR slash and burn piece on Obama (which it is, even if I end up agreeing with parts of it), I found something more to hope about. Even supporting Obama, I’ve been hearing the comments about him being plan-free for so long, I’d forgotten how much he gets done that I agree with.Check out FactCheck’s debate coverage below. The part where they support everything he has to say about his accomplishments is heartening.http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton-obama_pillow_fight.htmlBack to the article.

By: Ana

Ana — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:46:45 +0000

Wasn’t sure which thread to post this on but OMG if Obama is not actually going to spend some time in Appalachia. I am so relieved. Feeling better about November already.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:16:03 +0000

Joel: Right. And the same is true of the Clinton campaign.Hard working white Annie Oakley assassins. A candidate does not say what a candidate says, and a candidate does not mean what a candidate said, until it proves to be a good idea.

By: Joel

Joel — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:50:48 +0000

I really don't see Obama or his campaign or the Democratic party working to portray Clinton as racist. I do see the media trying to shape that narrativeI would disagree, the Obama camp denounces dirty politics through its leader, the staff pass out transcripts of media hit pieces against the opponent.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:23:24 +0000

Joel, Clinton doesn’t come across to me as more racist than average, meaning I think she means well but has some assumptions she hasn’t hauled out into the bright light of day. Like most of us. Average, except that she’s in a position where she has to talk about it.I do, however, think she’s somewhat tone deaf on the subject. There are things she’s said that are easy to criticize. That doesn’t make her a bad person, but it’s legitimate for it to make people wary. And it’s certainly legitimate to want to talk about it, even though we won’t do it well. It’s just too emotional a topic for that, like sexism.And then there’s the press. The ratings-generating, narrative-constructing, privilege-protecting, historically king-making fourth estate. This Democratic primary season, with its record turnouts and surfeit of popular choices, is the kind of thing they distrust in their black little hearts. It’s populism that they can’t control.They’ve tried, though, and if you look closely, that’s where most of the negativity is coming from. Watch who’s taking things out of context. Watch who’s turning everything into a boxing match. As you pointed out, it’s the press who painted West Virginia as a hotbet of proud, entrenched racism. You and I both know they showed the most extreme statements they could get anyone to utter on camera in making that case. You and I both know they did a lousy job of representing you when they talked about the white working class (except for the part about supporting Clinton).That’s why I wanted to step away from the conversation for a bit before answering your comments above. I wanted to make sure I was answering you and not the general swirl of emotion.All that being said, I really don’t see Obama or his campaign or the Democratic party working to portray Clinton as racist. I do see the media trying to shape that narrative, and I see people buying it, but that’s not the same thing.Oh, and Greg can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the white wing conspiracy is in any way intended to refer to the working class. You need more power and cohesion than that for an effective conspiracy.

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:48:09 +0000

Franklin Roosevelt didn’t have much in the way of “substance”, either, before he got elected.You’re right. FDR did not provide a lot of detail about what he was planning on doing when he got into office. But, FDR was running against Herbert Hoover who did not think he should, or could, do anything to help bring the country out of the depression. The decision was easy given the choice of the inaction of Hoover or the promised action of FDR. This worked in ’32.In 2007? Change for the sake of change? No thanks. Don’t tell me what you think I want to hear, let’s hear what you really stand for.

By: Joel

Joel — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:17:54 +0000

Stephanie, In my opinion, the accusations that Hillary has run a racist campaign aren’t based in fact but opinion. With the Obama camp seeing racism in nearly every action and statement made by the Clinton campaign and people like me, who support Hillary, seeing this negative spin put on everything Hillary says and does.What bothers me in particular is, after the West Virginia vote when news organizations asked openly whether or not the white working class, especially rural, Hillary supporters were simply racist in their decision. When you say, rural white working class, I resemble that quite a bit and I would take that as characterizing me as a racist.Then there are interactions on blogs with comments like I’m pretty sure all this talk about Democrats moving away from their bases is part of the vast white wing conspiracy and this “Vote for me – at least I’m white.” which are pretty clear in their intent to portray Hillary as playing to her racist followers.I don’t mean to pick on Greg Laden’s blog, if I didn’t enjoy reading the posts I wouldn’t bother to come around, these are just a couple handy examples and to be honest very measured in their tone. There are places where the comments are far worse, I’ve been told that old people like me need to hurry up and die for example and I don’t go there any longer.

By: sjburnt

sjburnt — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:19:39 +0000

Ahcuah nailed it.It is not that we are unready for a female President – the problem most people have with Hillary is Hillary.In truth, we suffer from a lack of candidates this election. Just like the last election, but that is another story…The rest of this video is uninteresting whining.The Dems set up the rules, but Hillary does not want to play by them. Lessee, I kept my name on the ballot, so I deserve to get all the marbles.Is there any doubt Hillary won the popular vote? Does it depend upon how you define the word ‘is’, or how you define the word ‘vote’?I hope all the Hillary supporters are careful, because she faces gunfire on occasion.Sorry, nice try, love to talk, but I have heard all I can stand from this self-centered, power-hungry icon for entitlement.Bye, H., please, don’t come back.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:22:50 +0000

Joel, this is a while in coming, but I wanted to think about it. You didn’t decide what Clinton should talk about or how she should campaign. You didn’t imply that Obama can’t win white working-class votes. Why does someone calling this a racist tactic make you racist by proxy? Why does pointing out that some racists are supporting Clinton make you racist by proxy? Supporting Obama doesn’t make me religious by proxy.

By: Anne Gilbert

Anne Gilbert — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 16:49:33 +0000

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: There’s more than enough sexism, racism, homophobia, and every other “ism” you want to name, to go around. And the Republicans have, or soon will, take full advantage of this. The trouble with Clinton is not(at least to me), so much that’s she’s a woman, and white(heck, I’m a woman and white, too), but her “sense of entitlement”. For many of us, she’s a representative of the “same old, same old”. Obama seems to represent change. And for those who keep crying “substance, subjstance” at Obama, just remember this: Franklin Roosevelt didn’t have much in the way of “substance”, either, before he got elected. But by that time people wanted change, very, very badly. The Depression was hurting lots of them. We are hurting now, for somewhat different reasons, and that is one of the resasons people want change. I hope they get it.Anne G