Pam says it all. Are we really in a “post-racial” election when Bill Clinton makes comments like this? Or, even on feminist blogs like this one, commenters refer to “Barack Hussein Obama”? Or when this is published in a New York newspaper?:
Along with this:
“The truth is, I don’t know many black people, but my advisers have drafted a strategy to reel in the black vote:
1) Call everyone ‘Brother.’ Blacks, I am told, do this even if most of their real brothers are in jail.
2) Talk Jive. Brothers want to hear jive. During my speech I told the crowd, ‘We be, you know, sick of whitey supressin’ and congestin’ so, you know, we won’t denigrate or sophisticate but emulate and populate, you know, the system is, like, broken, y’all!’”And, in reference to Hillary Clinton:
“Ultimately, if she gets too close, one of my New york advisors has advised me to ‘Bitch slap that ho.’ White women, I am told, like that.”
Just read Pam.
Actually, I quit reading Pam after she wrote that, “there are two goals to keep in mind: Getting Clinton out of the race, and keeping Edwards viable,” http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/01/09/strategic-voting-in-the-primaries-and-other-thoughts/ on Pandagon. That was back on Jan. 9th, before all the Obama-bashing.
That and the rabid hatred for any / all religion. For someone who writes about prejudice and injustice, she is awfully prejudiced against people with spirituality.
The Clinton campaign’s tactics have been heinous, but I wouldn’t take it from someone with an obvious axe to grind.
I’m with beigelights about not reading Pam these days–her good thoughts are just getting obscured by spew. Especially with the number of posts she’s been putting up there recently.
(I’ve been trying to figure out how to leave a comment about that at Pandagon, but haven’t been able to phrase it in such a way that wouldn’t ruffle feathers. So I’m taking the cheap route and saying it here)
“Strategic voting in the primaries and other thoughts
Posted by Amanda Marcotte January 9, 2008 in Uncategorized, Election”
Reading is our friend.
Fair enough – I haven’t read Pam, who is highly perceptive and intelligent but also terribly prejudiced against religious people and Hillary Clinton, since she hosted on her blog the phrase, “goals to keep in mind: Getting Clinton out of the race,” pre questionable Clinton campaign tactics.
The anti-religious stuff I’m pretty sure she wrote herself.
:::has no words:::
:::headdesk:::
In relation to the actual post, I was very bummed when the Clinton campaign got down in the dirt with the negative tactics. I’ve been hearing since the beginning that it was just a matter of time before the racism reared its ugly head in response to Obama’s candidacy, and I thought, “sexism is so much more publicly acceptable, Hillary will have a much worse time of it than Obama,” but, sadly, I was wrong. I’m glad people are calling out the the author of the Yo Mama article, and the sexist media pundits, in many cases, though.
Alas, with the infighting, my hope for a Clinton / Obama ticket isn’t looking good.
Pam’s Blog: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/ ; Your search – “Getting Clinton out of” – did not match any documents.
Christ, take it up with your stuffed animals or something, assuming your initial point was even relevant to the discussion, a contention Clyde Frog strenuously disagrees with.
That doesn’t fly. Religous beliefs are truth claims like any other, and fair game for criticism.
I left Pam’s site for other reasons,mainly a lot of crude transphobia and misogyny from gaytriarchal men (I mean that, that’s not a misspelling) that she did very little to stop.
However, I don’t know where y’all are getting a vibe of anti-religious hatred from Pam. Are you assuming that criticism of the stances taken by extremist elements in Christianity (and other religions) equates with anti-religious hatred? And you are aware, perhaps, that one of the most frequent commenters on that board is Jerry Maneker, who is a minister? Pam promotes nearly every one of his diaries to the front page.
You do realize that Hussein is actually his middle name, right? Or are you trying to imply that the specification of his full name is derogatory because it highlights race?
Of course I realize Hussein is his middle name. But specifying his middle name is a pretty transparent way of inferring that he’s Muslim or Arab or somehow otherwise connected to terrorists and not “American.”
Off the top of your head, do you know John Edwards’ middle name? Hillary Clinton’s (Rodham is her maiden name, not her middle name)? John McCain’s? Mike Huckabee’s? Rudy Giuliani’s? I don’t. Using Obama’s full name is one more way of othering him.
RachelPhilPa: beigelights’s problem is that all female bloggers are actually the same person. In which case it doesn’t matter who actually wrote the offending post or on which blog it appeared.
Not that this is to say that I find either of the bloggers in question to be biased against “religious people,” just against fundamentalism — and hooray for that.
Too bad the intent of your post, Jill, got threadjacked right off the bat and became a referendum on Pam Spaulding instead…but since it DID… I read Pam every day, and appreciate her insights and opinions.
You know, “Post Racial” Elections was a really interesting post – I’m almost sorry I got so many panties all in a bunch, thereby distracting from it.
Being honestly quite ignorant of US race issues, I am asking this: Is it not possible that Bill Clinton simply meant that being first in South Carolina is no indication of anything, as Jesse Jackson won it twice and still didn’t win the nomination?
Is what he said necessarily racist? Or is it possible that we’re looking for racism in everything?
And also, is it necessarily racist to point out that a SC has a history of voting for the black candidate when there is one? Even assuming that’s what he meant.
I’m not trying to be argumentative or an apologist for Bill Clinton. I’m honestly curious.
Luna: Jesse Jackson is a rather divisive black figure who a lot of people don’t take seriously. I also don’t know if you watched the video, but Clinton was clearly being flippant about Obama’s victory and spinning it as though the people of South Carolina have always been very silly in their support for black candidates, so there shouldn’t be any need to worry that Obama might actually go on to win the nomination. Thus, yes, it was quite racist in both tone and content.
Luna, here are a couple of things to ponder:
1) Bill Clinton is a shrewd politician and does not flap off at the mouth unaware of the consequences.
2) Bill is a son of the south and grew up in the very tumultuous civil rights era and is very aware of the racial mechanics there.
So when you put just those two things together, it makes it difficult to believe that it was anything but a desperate attempt to undermine a candidate by linking him with a very polarizing figure that for some reason people still label as the voice of the black community.
this is disgusting …