The linked article channels part of my perspective on the race, gender, Clinton, and Obama thingy. Nothing like paying African-American "leaders" to be your surrogates, Hillary. Classy. As Porch is known to say, "Take it sleazy."
"Will They Play the Race Card?" link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/11/AR2008011103281.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
On Meet the Press on Sunday, Clinton spent most of her time poor-mouthing Obama's record and murmuring about how her unfair treatment by the media, the same folks who for many months have deemed her a shoo-in for the nomination and who have consistently under-reported or ignored Edwards, a fellow who has say about who wins the nomination either indirectly by sticking in the race or directly through his delegates.
There's been a turn. Obama/Edwards represent/ed the anti-Clinton vote in many ways, but now Hillary (and Bill--don't forget him) are portraying themselves as the anti-Obama vote, with racial tinges.
They're not as bad as Rove's op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal where he talked about how Obama is "lazy" and played too much basketball at Harvard, but Hillary is getting sketchy.
2 comments:
...Nothing like paying African-American "leaders" to be your surrogates, Hillary....
Maybe this will help Democrats move away from identity politics.
I'm male, white, and Catholic so I figure about 70% of the population think of me as the "enemy" in one form or the other without knowing anything about my politics.
Ooooh, you are the "oppressor," ain't ya?
I'll raise though.
I'm an agnostic (not to be confused with atheist) white male, so I figure my percentage is in the low 90s.
Interestingly, I'm sure sometime during this semester I'll have a rant on being white and male in academia. It's bound to happen.
I overheard comments by two vegetarians the other day that made me want to rant a bit. I'll probably get to that too.
Post a Comment