Tuesday, January 29, 2008
The "Race" Card & Tomorrows
Much too busy until today to post my musing about the latest political brouhaha, this time over the Clinton campaign injecting race into the race, Howling Latina respectfully submits that journalists were the very ones to drag the first racist code word into the '08 political lexicon, not Hillary or Bill Clinton.
As proof, she hearkens back to Sen. Hillary Clinton's huge win in New Hampshire over Sen. Barack Obama and how certain media elites, including progressive bloggers, minimized her huge win by attributing the Bradley effect as a major component, a not-too-subtle code word for white racism.
You see, how else could the former first lady come from behind and win in New Hampshire?!?
Today, one of the initial purveyors of this blatantly racist theory, Eugene Robinson, pens an op-ed in the Washington Post.
Sure, the former president could've used John Edwards as an example to show that winning South Carolina did not guarantee winning the over-all Democratic presidential nomination, but again, that would've missed the specific point that race was a factor in selecting South Carolina and race may well have played a part in Obama's landslide victory.
Was it not fair game to muse about the Bradley effect in New Hampshire's win for Hillary??? Why not give Bill Clinton the same degree of forbearance in South Carolina???
Now, as Mr. Robinson darkly writes, "[t]he Clintons [may be] running the kind of campaign they know how to run," but after seven painful years of clever sloganeering dolled up by Bush as thoughtful assessment, voters would do well to keep in mind that no matter how many times Obama tells them the election in '08 is "about the past versus the future," elections are equally about our yesterdays as they are about tomorrows.
Or is Obama using code words to remind blacks of Jim Crow and minimize it for whites? Conspiracy symbolism is endlessly suggestive of meaning.
Geez, why are Democrats allowing the media glitterati to frame their race? If this back and forth nonsense doesn' stop, folks may decide to stay home and not vote -- especially since both Obama and Clinton are excellent, credible candidates. And of course, the media will then frame the issue as Dems disgusted by the process with dire consequences for the party in the fall.
Update: Ohmygahd, the "howler" just realized that her use of "darkly writes" when referring to Eugene Robinson could ALSO BE CONSTRUED as racist code words. Please know that the problem lies with American idiom -- not with the "howler."
As proof, she hearkens back to Sen. Hillary Clinton's huge win in New Hampshire over Sen. Barack Obama and how certain media elites, including progressive bloggers, minimized her huge win by attributing the Bradley effect as a major component, a not-too-subtle code word for white racism.
You see, how else could the former first lady come from behind and win in New Hampshire?!?
Today, one of the initial purveyors of this blatantly racist theory, Eugene Robinson, pens an op-ed in the Washington Post.
You see, the Clintons are not allowed to talk about the huge elephant in the room; that is, that South Carolina was specifically selected as an early primary state because of its huge Democratic black voting block.Playing the race card against Barack Obama didn't work out quite the way Bill Clinton had hoped.
[...]
I wonder how all the Clintonistas who protested that Bill and Hillary would never, ever dream of stooping to racial politics must be feeling now, after Bill was videotaped in the act. On Saturday, as Democrats in South Carolina went to the polls, a reporter asked Bill about Obama's boast that it took two Clintons to try to beat him. Bill replied: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."
Sure, the former president could've used John Edwards as an example to show that winning South Carolina did not guarantee winning the over-all Democratic presidential nomination, but again, that would've missed the specific point that race was a factor in selecting South Carolina and race may well have played a part in Obama's landslide victory.
Was it not fair game to muse about the Bradley effect in New Hampshire's win for Hillary??? Why not give Bill Clinton the same degree of forbearance in South Carolina???
Now, as Mr. Robinson darkly writes, "[t]he Clintons [may be] running the kind of campaign they know how to run," but after seven painful years of clever sloganeering dolled up by Bush as thoughtful assessment, voters would do well to keep in mind that no matter how many times Obama tells them the election in '08 is "about the past versus the future," elections are equally about our yesterdays as they are about tomorrows.
Or is Obama using code words to remind blacks of Jim Crow and minimize it for whites? Conspiracy symbolism is endlessly suggestive of meaning.
Geez, why are Democrats allowing the media glitterati to frame their race? If this back and forth nonsense doesn' stop, folks may decide to stay home and not vote -- especially since both Obama and Clinton are excellent, credible candidates. And of course, the media will then frame the issue as Dems disgusted by the process with dire consequences for the party in the fall.
Update: Ohmygahd, the "howler" just realized that her use of "darkly writes" when referring to Eugene Robinson could ALSO BE CONSTRUED as racist code words. Please know that the problem lies with American idiom -- not with the "howler."
Monday, January 14, 2008
Leery of Obama
Ever since the howler learned that Obama merely voted "present" during a controversial bill that would have tried some juveniles as adults, her love affair with Obama (if one can call it that) came to an abrupt stop.
And the fact that his campaign accused former President Clinton of bigotry for pointing out that Obama's claim of being adamantly opposed to the Iraq invasion was a fairy tale in light of comments made in 2004 by the Democratic Senate hopeful and now presidential candidate that immediately negated any initial hostility of going to war, certainly did not endear the junior Illinois senator any...
The Democratic party is at a historical crossroad of an embarassment of riches. The first serious female presidential candidate is running in the same election cycle as the first serious black presidential contender.
Oh dear...what to do....whom to vote for...?
It's a tough call, folks. But as a feminist who watched the progressive blogosphere all too often rail against Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the '06 elections because you know, gasp, she was a liberal, and a woman to boot, she kinna leans towards Mrs. Clinton. That is, if she can muzzle hubby's phat trap.
Obama's "present" votes was the ultimate straw that broke the camel's stalemate for her; at least for now. If Willie doesn't shut up, though, and soon, the howler may change her mind. AGAIN!
And the fact that his campaign accused former President Clinton of bigotry for pointing out that Obama's claim of being adamantly opposed to the Iraq invasion was a fairy tale in light of comments made in 2004 by the Democratic Senate hopeful and now presidential candidate that immediately negated any initial hostility of going to war, certainly did not endear the junior Illinois senator any...
The Democratic party is at a historical crossroad of an embarassment of riches. The first serious female presidential candidate is running in the same election cycle as the first serious black presidential contender.
Oh dear...what to do....whom to vote for...?
It's a tough call, folks. But as a feminist who watched the progressive blogosphere all too often rail against Speaker Nancy Pelosi before the '06 elections because you know, gasp, she was a liberal, and a woman to boot, she kinna leans towards Mrs. Clinton. That is, if she can muzzle hubby's phat trap.
Obama's "present" votes was the ultimate straw that broke the camel's stalemate for her; at least for now. If Willie doesn't shut up, though, and soon, the howler may change her mind. AGAIN!
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Trashed GOP Brand, Romney, Select Smart & Dem Choices
As Republican elites coalesce around Mutable Mitt as their presidential standard bearer in the upcoming race, one has to wonder what in the world GOPers are thinking about...
Let's face it, it's not as if Democrats won't nicely turn the Kerry karmic tables on Romney as the flip-flopping poster boy on guns, gays, immigration, abortion and campaign reform (replete with past quotes, of course).
But there's something else going on.
David Brooks penned a nice column in the New York Times, "Road to Nowhere," that in light of the Bush fiasco and current political climate might explain all.
Now back to an earlier theme from a previous post. This is a generational historic moment where Democrats can marshal their energies to help elect the presidential candidate who best embodies their hard core principles.
Go ahead, take the simple online quiz by USA Today, ABC News and/or SelectSmart. And then have the courage to follow through with your vote -- especially if the same low-tiered candidate wins every time -- and in spite of media pundits parroting opposition research and calling him or her a ball-buster, druggie, phony, irrelevant loony.
Let's face it, it's not as if Democrats won't nicely turn the Kerry karmic tables on Romney as the flip-flopping poster boy on guns, gays, immigration, abortion and campaign reform (replete with past quotes, of course).
But there's something else going on.
David Brooks penned a nice column in the New York Times, "Road to Nowhere," that in light of the Bush fiasco and current political climate might explain all.
Indeed. Even before the first vote is cast, Republican leaders know that all is lost. But no matter, party on, dude...like it's still 1980 or somethin'If any Republican candidate is going to win this year, he will have to offer a new brand of Republicanism. But Romney has tied himself to the old brand. He is unresponsive to the middle-class anxiety that Huckabee is tapping into. He has forsaken the trans-partisan candor that McCain represents. Romney, the cautious consultant, is pivoting to stress his corporate competence, and is rebranding himself as an Obama-esque change agent, but he will never make the sort of daring break that independent voters will demand if they are going to give the G.O.P. another look.
The leaders of the Republican coalition know Romney will lose. But some would rather remain in control of a party that loses than lose control of a party that wins.
Now back to an earlier theme from a previous post. This is a generational historic moment where Democrats can marshal their energies to help elect the presidential candidate who best embodies their hard core principles.
Go ahead, take the simple online quiz by USA Today, ABC News and/or SelectSmart. And then have the courage to follow through with your vote -- especially if the same low-tiered candidate wins every time -- and in spite of media pundits parroting opposition research and calling him or her a ball-buster, druggie, phony, irrelevant loony.
