The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Hill Up In Harlem

Re: Hill Up In Harlem

sfsinger — Thu, 29 May 2008 04:40:46 -0000

At best you're being generous. You should check out the Clinton attacks Obama wiki at Jack&Jill politics. It lays it out rather clearly. And if referencing assassination and June primaries and 'you know what happened to RFK' 5 times isn't intentional I might as well claim immaculate conception. Her charges of unfair treatment and sexism used as some sort of code against Black men, her denying ANY racism while trumping sexism which totally discounts Black women - sorry but you are being willfully ignorant! As if having house Negros with self-interests excuses her and them from racism. No! Look at the CBC report and check out the voting records of some of the Borg Queen's most staunch advocates and you will see how they've failed to live up to voting in the interests of their constituents and sold us out for pennies.

Re: Hill Up In Harlem

Kai of Rebelology — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:55:16 -0000

I have to disagree with you as well. Do you see how many different things you had to dismiss or account for in order to give her team a pass? That, my friend, is a pattern. If it was just Geraldine Ferraro, or Bill's "all niggers win South Carolina" Clinton or Hillary's "Hard working white Americans", it would be reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt. But it is all of those things, plus more, and basically when you have white mainstream writers accusing them of race-baiting (the same core of writers who are gleefully oblivious to racism) I think that speaks volumes.

Re: Hill Up In Harlem

Jaye — Tue, 27 May 2008 14:37:51 -0000

You must think Hillary is a complete idiot to have that many "slip-ups" after she was already accused of race-baiting. How come these "slip-ups", these indirect, insinuating insults towards African-Americans, never occurred during Bill's presidency? How come he (or she) never inadvertantly insulted any African-Americans back then? And how come none of these mistaken insults ever happen towards any other group (Hispanics for instance), if they are innocent mistakes, shouldn't they be evenly directed towards all the different communities? It seemed like these "mistakes" only began happening after she started losing. If she's that stupid, if she really has no clue what her words imply even after she has been told and explained to, she doesn't deserve to hold any government office at all. If she isn't that stupid, I don't even have words for how mistaken I was about her to begin with. Thank God Obama's running, or we all would've put this crazy person into office.

Re: Hill Up In Harlem

conseula — Tue, 27 May 2008 12:20:26 -0000

I think I have to agree with Mike here. How many "slips" would ultimately equal race-baiting? I buy that there probably wasn't a meeting where Clinton and her strategists made an explicit decision to employ a "southern strategy," but she seems all too willing to exploit racial tensions to her benefit. And her insistence that she's a better candidate, presumably because she's whiter than Obama and can win swing states (which seems to me code for white voters) is enough to give me pause. Listen, Clinton is probably not a racist, but her campaign has certainly benefitted from race-baiting, whether or not she initiated it, and she certainly doesn't seem to object to that fact.

Re: Hill Up In Harlem

Mike Meginnis — Tue, 27 May 2008 10:02:30 -0000

I really disagree on this one. The "white Americans" thing may have been a slip of the tongue, but it's of a piece with the argument she's been making for a while now, which is that a black man can't possibly win, full stop.

That wouldn't be racist outside of this context -- in fact, had you asked me two years ago, I would have probably said without hesitation that it was true -- but here, in this context, where Obama is winning the primary, in fact has won it, and every indicator we have says he not only could win the general but probably will, it seems quite racist to continue insisting he simply can't win. This is doubly so when one remembers that the only way she could possibly be more electable is if she didn't need black votes, or if we assume she'll ultimately win most black voters back over after pulling out a tainted win against Obama, because where else will they go? The former, of course, is extremely racist and stupid, and assuming the latter is a formula for racism in the future.

That's how I see it anyway.