I have taken some time to think about what everyone posted. Let me just say that I am not reveling in Clinton's defeat and that I do not take pleasure in her pain. However, I am not going to lie to you all and say I respect her as a politician or public servant because I don't. I respect her many past deeds, but I do not respect who she has become. I can be disingenuous and tell you all that I think she generally has good character, but the truth is that I do not like Hillary Clinton. I do not respect her campaign tactics and her apparent belief that it is acceptable to say and do anything to win elected office.
There are some who claim that both candidates have had their "high and low" points during the primary season. The underlying claim here is that both candidates have been equally negative in how they conducted their campaign. This, however, is simply not true in my view and in the opinion of many others. I have pointed to the defections from the Clinton campaign and Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon (a top Clinton fundraiser). According to the polls, voters also think Clinton has been more negative than Obama in her attacks. I decided to look through some exit polls to see how voters felt about the tone of the campaign. CNN asks its respondents to say whether a particular candidate "attacked unfairly." I focused my attention on exit polls from states where Hillary Clinton had the strongest margins as I am sure the numbers will be inflated against her in states she lost (like they were deflated in these states). I even decided I wouldn't look at the close states to get an idea of how weak or strong the sentiment is. The results show that in Tennessee, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, and New York, more voters (even if by one point) agreed that Hillary "unfairly attacked" Obama than those who believed that he had "unfairly attacked" her. In New York, a majority of voters actually agreed that she "unfairly attacked" him whereas only forty percent believed the same about Obama. In states that Clinton did not win by as large of a margin, the results are even more unfavorable for her. Even if you assume that in these states all Obama supporters and those who voted for someone else said Hillary attacked unfairly, that still means a percentage of Clinton supporters also agreed with the statement. I think this demonstrates that it is not only Obama supporters who feel Hillary has crossed the line more times than Obama and more blatantly than Obama.
The wording of the CNN question brings me to my next point ("attacked unfairly"). I don't have any issue with Hillary debating Obama on policy and matters that relate to being president, but I do have a big problem with personal and non-policy related attacks. Hillary was wrong for exploiting the Wright issue. She was wrong for accusing Obama of being a plagiarist. She was wrong for attacking Obama for winning states that "don't matter" (which includes Virginia btw).
Finally and most importantly for me, her exploitation of racial and cultural divisions have transformed me from someone who admired the Clintons to one who wants neither to ever hold public office again. I have studied much history during my time in college. One recurrent theme in politics has been the use of racial divisions to stir up resentment and divide the nation for political gain. It can be seen in the time from the Redemption era (and before) to Nixon's Southern Strategy, and all the way up to the Willie Horton ad in the 1980s and the Harold Ford ad in 2006. These political tactics do more than capture a few votes for one candidate or the other. They also inflict deep wounds on America and may cause irreparable harm in our quest to achieve racial conciliation. Have we not seen how much agony and pain has been caused by racial resentment? Was the enslavement of blacks not enough? Was the internment of Japanese American not enough? Were the racist and vile laws enacted in the South not enough? Is the resentment many whites feel towards black students at highly ranked colleges and universities not enough? Were the acts of violence and intimidation that took place on this campus a couple of years ago not enough? Is the deeply held animosity many people today still hold for other races not enough for these candidates to stop using race a means to divide and conquer the electorate?
This is not just an issue I have read about or distantly observed. My family knows all too well the evils of racism. After hearing their stories, I do not take the issue of race lightly. It is very personal for me and more than just some political tool a candidate can use to win a few votes. I do not claim to speak for all blacks, but this is how I and many people I know and love feel personally. Whether it was Bill Clinton's comment before South Carolina or Hillary Clinton's recent comments to USA Today, I am incredibly angry that they have resorted to using race as a way to win an election. They are using political tactics that has caused so much pain and anguish in this nation albeit in a much diluted form. I do not believe these two individuals are racist or racially resentful. I think that in general the Clintons have been far more restrained in their use of race than politicitans in the past. However, that does not excuse them and allow them to engage in the type of politics they have.
This is a brief explanation of why I feel so strongly. This is about something much deeper than a political campaign. It is about rectifying wrongs of the past and not repeating them. It is about my future and the world I want to see. I hope all politicians will wake up one day and stop taking advantage of our differences and divisions.
I also think though that politicians are a reflection of who we are. They can only take advantage or manipulate us to the extent we are open to that. These provincial attitudes still exist in America. Your example of the Harold Ford ad just demonstrates that. As long as we are receptive to that, it will continue to occur. It is certainly beneficial to certain groups, especially, the aspect of dividing people who have shared economic interests. I don't think we can be reliant on politicians to do something about this. It wasn't politicians who were the prime movers ending slavery in British Empire. It wasn't politicians who were the prime movers in Women's right to vote or the Civil Rights Movement. It was the people and politicians just effected the change we wanted. They just react to our will, when we choose to express it.
I guess I am not mad at Hillary Clinton becuase I don't know her. Because I don't know her experience and why she is the way she is, it is hard for me to be mad at her, frustrated sure. I know she has been through a lot as a public figure. And to some extent, maybe she has adopted the tactics of her oppressors. It's hard to say because you never get a complete look at another individual. You may get close to that with relatives, spouses, and close friends. And when they do ill-advised things or the wrong thing, you have context and can understand it better. But here there is no context, there is just frustration. I feel that everyone has the potential to be better and consistently make positive, right choices, but there is the weight of their life's experience and the environment that they are in that can be a great barrier to that. Put another way, God is calling us always to do right, but we are not always listening. And even when we are, we may opt for the easy way.
As I have said earlier, I think that her campaign is the making of a Tragedy. I feel sad for her because she has worked for this for, perhaps, her lifetime. And now her own limitations have denied that which she wanted most. That's probably punishment enough.
Back to your points about racial politics in American history, Barak Obama also operates within that framework. Unlike Jesse Jackson, he does not air black communities' grievances in public. He is not holding up a mirror to white America and making them reflect on the tragic history of the past and how that has created the society we live in today. The overreaction to Rev Wright demonstrates a lack of historical context that Americans have. And Obama rather than provide context just condemned the controversial statements and moved on. Obama does not ask for anything in that regard, that I have seen anyway.
If she is smart, she will not try to defend this, but just profusely apologize.
If there is any saving grace, this kind of gaffe will only hasten the end for her.
But the battle being waged seemed to be one of economic class, not of race.
On the other hand, in America you can never get to far from race in any issue.
Anyway, this is a more blatant and direct racial appeal, I think, than anything we have heard from Clinton, or even her surrogates, before, although as past discussion threads here have shown, there is certainly room for debate on that.
On the other hand, you say you have "heard" of the Clinton's saying objectionable things, but you say, "Oh, I can't tell you what they are or where I heard it." If you can't do that, then just keep it to yourself, because otherwise you are just wasting our time and spreading slander and gossip.
As anyone who has read my comments over the past few months knows, I am a Jew, and my Judaism is quite meaningful to me. In the Jewish religion, gossiping is considered a sin that hurts three people: The speaker of the gossip, the person being gossiped about, and the person who hears it.
My own personal belief is that nothing is more evil than suppressing the truth. That's why I have started a documentary series with the local Democratic committee of which I am the head of "Education and Outreach". I did this because of all the lies and distortions in the media. I think this is vey important for democracy.
Like the person who posted here I also believe it is evil to encourage racism anti-semitism or any other kind of ism to advance ones own self interest. Power structures over the centuries have used this tactic to control the public and keep them fighting. That way the public doesn't see the real problem. It is a sad day for me when I see leaders of the Democratic Party which is supposed to represent the ordinary person and the downtrodden adopt the tactics of those who believe they are better that the rest of us and who don't care about our interests.
What should my reaction be? It is just: sigh...
I am not one to go out and try to find a racial undertone in a comment where there is none. I have made a concerted effort to try to see her and her staff's comments as something other than race baiting or demeaning to black, young, and educated voters, but I have not been able to do it in a lot of cases. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, but I am also not naive.
When are we going to realize that we're all Americans? Or maybe we should follow the will of the Founding Fathers, and count Obama votes as 3/5 of a person.
Most men are not scared of women and vice versa. In fact, some of us are even married to each other. The middle-aged are not opposed to their college-aged children; they just wish they didn't cost so much. We agree with our retired parents on many things, including politics, even if we can't agree on where to spend vacation. Many people of all races and backgrounds mingle freely in every context every day, and the world does not come to a screeching halt, even if Hillary Clinton and Paul Begala think it should. We are not living in the '50s or '60s any more, thank God. Heck, even Hokies and Wahoos can agree on some things, these days. This idiotic talk about "the white vote" has got to stop.
That so few big-name Democrats have repudiated her wedging and her statement yesterday gives me great pause and grave concern. How can we be seeing this? And at the hands of the Clintons?
PS From your screen name, it looks as though you graduate shortly. Best wishes and Godspeed. Hope you keep blogging!
As to the subject at hand, what was so disappointing to me when the Clintons first started making comments like this is that I knew they were not racist and that they knew better. There are some who say they don't understand why the Clintons would make these comments, but for me it has always been quite obvious. They are very skilled politicians and know how to play the game. Unfortunately, it appears they have set aside their better judgment to win an election.