The Clinton Generation

by: Matt Stoller

Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 19:53


There's a kind of cultural racism and elitism that the boomer Clintonistas carry around with them.  It comes out in moments like this.

"If you have a social need, you're with Hillary," the aide said. "If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool."

This is a twin attack on African-Americans and young people.  While Josh Marshall is right that there are thousands of people that consider themselves Clinton advisors, at least part of it comes from the top.  Remember this quip from Hillary to the Chamber of Commerce?

We have a lot of kids who don't know what works means. They think work is a four-letter word.

It's just how Clintonistas think.

Once again, I miss the time we argued about electability.

Update:  I'm not so much condemning Clinton or her generation's elite for their tribal attitudes.  It's not like Joe Biden, with his clean and articulate comment, was turning firehoses on civil rights marches.  I'm pointing out how there's a set of cultural assumptions which includes different roles for minorities, women, and sexuality among Clinton types, and that this set of assumptions comes out all the time.  A good deal of the whining in the comments simply ignored Clinton's nasty and unequivocal slur at young people, for which she late apologized.  But these assumptions are there in the form of Terry McAuliffe and the white boys, who have very different ideas about American culture.  And I actually don't see how you can look at the war on drugs, for instance, which these people supported and consider it as anything but a state-sponsored attack on young people and minorities. 

And yes, I think it's time for a generational shift.  For some reason, the boomer generation picked a bunch of people to lead it who didn't do very well.  At the same time, it also created the internet, marched during the civil rights movement, women's rights, etc.  In other words, it's a complicated story, and one can both point out that people have certain tribal attitudes while acknowledging that this is not a blanket condemnation of their character but a reflection of their upbringing and social context.

Update again: This is really ridiculous.  HRC campaign chair Terry McAuliffe is on record attacking immigrants for coming in and taking 'our jobs', Andrew Cuomo said that Obama can't 'suck and jive' at a press conference, Bob Kerrey made a Madrassa smear, Billy Shaheen brought up Obama's cocaine use, and a Clinton Iowa county coordinator forwarded right-wing hate emails about Obama being a Muslim.  Does that make Clinton a racist?  No.  Does it mean that at least some of her generational cohorts carry around with them prejudice?  Yes.  It's not even possible to dispute this.  Does any of this mean that Obama is perfect?  No. 

I originally wrote this post because I was kind of bored and trying to point out how irritating it is to deal with coded racist and sexist attacks instead of substance.  It was a minor post that I didn't think really said anything that controversial.  As a society we should be making plans to evacuate the Eastern seaboard in the next forty years while trying to run a crash course off fossil fuels and rebuild ecosystems that can act as carbon sinks.  Instead we get stupid tax cuts and a war without end.  Neither Obama or Clinton has bothered to distinguish themselves in any way shape or form to Democrats, which means that the argument is entirely about identity.

And so now I point out that Clinton's elite backers are marbled with a sort of cultural zeitgeist that is clearly situated with those who came to power from the 1960s and 1970s generation, and a bunch of people in the comments flip out.  To those people, here's my message.  Grow up.  Seriously.  People have weird attitudes about race and youth and age and gender.  They do.  It doesn't make anyone bad or good or a villain or a hero.  All of us have each of those strands within ourselves, and we work through them as best we can.  Race is obviously a huge deal.  So is gender.  The next nine months, and hopefully the next nine years, will see us with a President who is not a white guy.  That's going to bring this stuff out in very odd ways.  So get used to holding more than one thought in your head.

Matt Stoller :: The Clinton Generation

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The only thing that's a fantasy is that guy's world view (4.00 / 3)
No social needs?

Sorry, I guess he doesn't realize that young people graduate college with on average at least $20,000 of debt. (I know that my $40k in loans  is weighing on my mind lately).

Or that employers are granting health care to fewer and fewer entry level employees.

Or employers were offering fewer full-time, salaried jobs (Google: permalancers).

Or that "safe," high education jobs like tech jobs are being outsourced.

Or that young people might be the backbone of our military and get paid shit.

Or that young people might need/want to be starting families and buying a house.

Or that half of all pregnancies each year are by women in their 20s.

Or that we might face medical bankrupty.

Or that we might need to help support our parents who lost thier pensions or had their own medical emergencies or fiscal crises.

No no no.  It's all cake when you're twenty-something.  All I do is bullshit on facebook and live off the fat of the land.

/snark

Youth To Power: How Today's Young Voters Are Building Tomorrow's Progressive Majority


Appalled (4.00 / 3)
I am appalled at the presentation of the quote of Matt's.

An anonymous Clinton adviser made an interesting comment to The Guardian,...

As you can see we are talking about an "anonymous" person here and it isn't even in an accredited US newspaper - it is in the UK's Guardian who has been known to print trash before and Matt should know this.

In addition is is really shameful for Matt to write this:

This is a twin attack on African-Americans and young people.  While Josh Marshall is right that there are thousands of people that consider themselves Clinton advisers, at least part of it comes from the top.

That is disgusting, sorry Matt, as it is pure conjuncture, no worse that conjecture, as there is no basis to make that accusation. Matt offers nothing to support that at least part of it comes from the top. Nothing.

Remember we are talking about a candidate that has the endorsement and support of many Black congress people, one who has been speaking up and working hard for the people of New Orleans, and has the endorsement of the head of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, among others.

Now if her campaign was racist it is highly unlikely that the above and people like leaders of southern churches, religious ministries and outreach groups, along with leaders like Jacqueline Jackson, wife Jesse Jackson, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, South Carolina state Rep. Harold Mitchell, the Alabama Democratic Conference, Former UN Ambassador Andrew Young, and many many many others would be endorsing her.

There is no frigging way that these people think Clinton is a racist and they are all Black.

The shit I'm reading all over the blogs including in Matt's post smells of a conscious attempt to try to peal away the black vote that Clinton has in order to stack the deck for Obama.

If anyone is playing the race card it is the people who are posting unsubstantiated garbage.

Even Josh said:

It's genuinely unclear to me how much one side or the other is consciously pushing this, how much it's escalated based in part on misunderstandings, or whether, in a somewhat related fashion, hyping journalistic accounts has given the engagement a life of its own.

Josh is honest enough to cast some doubts on all of this.

You guys want some conjecture? Here is some:

Who knows if the Obama's "You're likable enough, Hillary" campaign isn't planting these "anonymous" quotes in order to dirty trick the black voters.

Ridiculous you say? Not any more ridiculous than what Matt wrote. And why in the hell would a seasoned politician like Clinton who has a sterling record of working with and supporting the Black community jeopardize he life long affinity? It makes no sense.

It makes much more sense that what you read on the blogs is people using BS racism to their advantage and that anonymous quotes like the one Matt posted and then added his own commentary as if it were fact are coming from somewhere other than the Clinton campaign.

It is downright shameful what is going on here.


[ Parent ]
I hate to break it to you (0.00 / 0)
But Andrew Young isn't 100% a saint, and just because someone is endorsed and supported by certain people doesn't mean they're as pure as the driven snow.  Every candidate has suspect individuals and great individuals who support them.

[ Parent ]
Yeah Dude (4.00 / 1)
Whatever you think of Young does not negate all the others I mentioned and the others I didn't mention. The woman has spent a lifetime standing up for Blacks and her husband has his office in Harlem. Yeah sure they are racists.

Clinton is no racist and anyone who is trying to say she is, is a racist for using race to try to smear her. They might as well be Drudge or Limbaugh because the unsubstantiated quotes and innuendo are the same sick dishonest tactic. It's sad indeed that these are the levels that some on the Left have sunken to.


[ Parent ]
Her anti-racism background (4.00 / 3)
From her Wiki:

"Her early political development was shaped most strongly by her energizing high school history teacher, like her father a fervent anti-communist, and by her Methodist youth minister, like her mother concerned with issues of social justice; with the minister she saw and met civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. in Chicago in 1962 [Edit: when she was 15]. She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year. However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position; she characterized her own nature as that of "a mind conservative and a heart liberal." In her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy. Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty. Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention."

The things people do to win an election. All the candidates should cut out the ageism, sexism and racism.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.


[ Parent ]
Background (0.00 / 0)
Then why did she support Goldwater in 1964. She was aGoldwater girl

He voted against the civil rights bill of 1964 and campaigned against it during the 64 campaign.


[ Parent ]
Because she 17 years old (4.00 / 2)
in 1964.

Then she "left" the Republican Party at age 21:

Rodham attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami, where she decided to leave the Republican Party for good; she was upset over how Richard Nixon's campaign had portrayed Rockefeller and what Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages of the convention."

Heck I didn't know there were two parties at 21. I was unwittingly and unknowingly a Republican until 22.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.


[ Parent ]
sounds like Nixon 1968 = Clinton 2008? (0.00 / 0)
Rodham perceived as the "veiled" racist messages

Well then she should certainly understand why such messages are turning off young people today.  Seems like she is modeled after Nixon.


[ Parent ]
The Clintons and Gores (0.00 / 0)
have extensive records helping minorities. They're race-baiting to win an election. It's terrible and they should stop.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

[ Parent ]
A few months ago (0.00 / 0)
Axelrod/Obama started acting tough with Clinton and male Obama supporters liked seeing him put her in her place. He said things like, Well, "Hillary, I'm looking forward to you advising me as well."

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

[ Parent ]
Race baiting and racism are different (0.00 / 0)
Clinton doesn't need to be racist to use race-baiting tactics.  If history is to be a judge, there is little the Clinton's won't do when it comes to elections.

Remember Ricky Ray Rector?

http://en.wikipedia....

I don't doubt the Clintons' commitment to civil rights in the past, but the current stream of comments from their surrogates seems like a version of the Southern Strategy to me.


[ Parent ]
Obama (0.00 / 0)
doesn't need to be sexist to put Clinton in her place. It's Axelrod. But if he's already acting this way, I know what gender politics will be like in an Obama administration.

Banned for posting five straight diaries.

[ Parent ]
I have to say (0.00 / 0)
there's nothing I appreciate more than being patronized, "dude." I never said they were racists AT ALL. I was simply suggesting that positive or negative endorsements do not a positive or negative candidate make, and your use of that tactic is not persuasive, at least to me. Just because Norman Hsu was a Hillary backer and Tony Rezko was an Obama backer doesn't mean they too are criminal or corrupt. How about recognizing that the Clintons aren't racist because they simply aren't instead of dragging meaningless endorsements into the matter. Individuals are simply pointing out potentially damaging words from the campaign that may or may not be true, but aren't isolated incidents.

[ Parent ]
What You Were Doing (0.00 / 0)
was trying to blur what I said by bring up one name as is evidenced in the last line of your post I'm responding to. You too are reverting to innuendo. So you too are shameful. Fortunately I don't think your style will command much attention from most. The only reason I'm responding to you is because of your response to me. Aside from that I don't care to pay attention to people little enough to do what you are trying to do.

As for bringing up her endorsements sometimes facts are necessary in order to counter the blatant untruths and embellishments like Matt posted. In this case the fact. show that Blacks don't think she is racist or they would support her. As opposed to some of the white on this board who easily use race to meet their ends.

People need to know the truth instead of being swayed by someone who will stoop to Drudge like behavior.


[ Parent ]
No decency (0.00 / 0)
There has been a pattern of loose lips by the Clinton campaign. Patterns tend to suggest intent. There have been too many denials and too many apologies for my taste. Patterns are worth noting and commenting on.

Clinton is ruthless and will do whatever it takes to win--especially when her back is up against the wall. There is no decency in a Clinton campaign and there will be no decency in a Clinton WH. Unfortunately, we are looking at eight more years without decency.


[ Parent ]
Proof vs. Speculation (and Projection) (4.00 / 4)
Who is this "anonymous" source?

Is this what we're coming down to?  Pure speculation?  I come to OpenLeft to avoid all this nonsense and this is what we get?  OpenLeft should not engage is such bullshit; in fact, it should drop this unless it can prove it.

aiko,

My God, you act as if you know these people.  You want to talk about lacking decency?  Look in the mirror: Every post of yours revels in the fact that it's impossible to prove a false negative.  Prove HRC is not a racist!  Prove the Clintons are not without conscience!  No one can.  And in addition to the speculation passing as pure fact with regards to the Clintons there is also a double standard.  What about Eric Dyson stating on Chris Matthews' show that there was racial subtext to HRC stating that she considered herself ready to lead and not Obama?  Surely, that man is a fool, but I'm not going to slam Obama for that even though he is a supporter.

This is sick.


[ Parent ]
race (0.00 / 0)
Who are you trying to protect? This is what I believe and it is based on 15+ years of observing Clinton behavior. Do you read Lux's posts? He knows and admires the Clintons but even he says that they are ruthless and will do whatever it takes to win.

Well here we are. We can argue over who is pushing this narrative but consider who it helps more? I think it helps the Clintons more to have these flying accusations and anger spewing in the media. The white blue collar dems are being targeted with this subtle craziness about race. It works. Thats why they are doing it. Believe what you want.

The Clinton's are professional campaigners. They don't make mistakes. Everything is calculated. They don't have their professional surrogates drop little vague innuendos unless they are planned.

But when a man like Cylbern comes out in the NYT chastising the Clintons, for me it erases any doubt, and it means its real and its intentional and its being done to change the discussion from Obama the change agent and hero to Obama the black man. It may have already worked.

Here is his most recent statement:

  "There are many things I have fought for in my life, and first and foremost is my belief that every man, woman and child should be given an equal opportunity to succeed. That is my guiding principle in the upcoming South Carolina Democratic Presidential primary. I told the D.N.C., the South Carolina Democratic Party and the South Carolina General Assembly that I would do everything I could to ensure this first in the South primary is a success. My position and my focus remain the same, and I have conveyed that to the campaigns of Senators Obama, Clinton and Edwards.

  "I encourage the candidates to be sensitive about the words they use. This is an historic race for America to have such strong, diverse candidates vying for the Democratic nomination.

  I want what is best for South Carolina and the nation - a successful South Carolina primary and a strong Democratic nominee."


[ Parent ]
Not Lynne Woolsey (0.00 / 0)
She was once on welfare, but she is a href="http://www.woolseyforcongress.com/">not black.  Barbara Lee is for Obama.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
A Generational Battle (0.00 / 0)
This kind of generational battle between the Boomers and their kids comes out in the candidates and their campaigns. I get the feeling that Baby Boomers are concerned with electing the first woman or the first African-American to the White House, while people in the youngest generation of voters see that as no big deal. Even though it's never happened before, young voters see nothing out of the ordinary with voting for and electing a person who's not a white male. Baby Boomers, though, see it as a major accomplishment that has been a long time coming.

Of course, the increased turnout by young people scares the hell out of a lot of Boomers. My 18-29 year old friends largely hate the AARP, as it's the most powerful interest group in the country, and it works to help the old at the expense of the young. Old people vote, so politicians are beholden to them. But if young people turn out in equal numbers, they will get the attention of the politicians and will get more resources for their issues (such as family planning, college tuition, student loans, health insurance, etc). Old folks have enjoyed a near monopoly on policy, but it's now threatened by a new, energized generation.


Class a big factor too (0.00 / 0)
It is generational, but I also think a great deal of it is class.  The people who are advising Clinton and who worked in Bill's Administration are now generally pretty well-off, upper-middle class or lower-upper.  I don't think most of these folks have any real understanding of how much avenues for social mobility have closed off in the last 10 years, and how much the skewing of productivity growth to the very rich has robbed the bottom 85% of opportunity.

It is hard to remember that in the 1960's and well into the '70s one could go to, for example, the University of California for only a few hundred dollars per year plus living expenses.  Now it is over $20,000 a year.  Then there was a war, but life in general was simpler, public services were better, things were a lot freer and one could get by on much less money.  Jobs were pretty plentiful with a couple of bad years until about 1980.  I just think that the Boomers, particularly the first wave ones, don't understand how much harder it is for young people to get established today.  And of course there is the myth of the slacker which persists even as the Millenial Generation (born 1982-2001) is really the one that is turning Dem.

And of course, one can't forget that today's older Boomers were the very much doted upon children of the immediate post-War years, then the much-talked about children of the '60s and '70s, and they have never outgrown the effects of all that attention. 

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
re: Matt's Update (0.00 / 0)
What all this twisting of the truth is about with the Clinton's is about using racial smears on a candidate in order to try to bring about the generational change that the aging Matt longs for before he is too old to participate in it. That is clear from his writing.

And one day he too, as will Bowers, will meet the same thing from a new generation. Then they too will look at the twenty somethings, after being criticized by them, and realize that they don't yet have the life experiences to be the ones to change things in certain areas as they are still babes in the woods who think they know it all but wakeup later in life like we all did and realize that not only did they not know it all, they didn't know much.

Longing for generational change is nothing new. Each generation does it. And as for the 'boomers' - no one in modern history not only longed more for generational change - BUT ACTUALLY BROUGHT IT. No one changed culture or society in the short term and in the long term more than the DFH's. Each generation after the boomers owes a lot to the boomers.

No one in the current twenty something generation is going to help bring about things as powerful as civil rights or the freedom for women to be equals. That was our generation that did that for the twenty somethings and everyone else's benefit.

The current crop of twenty somethings just does not have the right stuff to pull that off. For example, in our war, Vietnam, we were all in the streets all of the time. We commanded the headlines and helped put a stop to the war. The twenty somethings of today can't hardly get off their asses to march in the streets. And when you do see that rare anti-war crowd marching 50% of them or better are boomer DFH's. So the new generation of today 'talks' about wanting change but is incapable and unwilling to bring about anything meaningful. They expect to sit behind their commuters in the comfort of their homes and bring change. It's ain't going to happen that way in the magnitude they would like - and frankly they don't even know what they would like. Theirs is a meta-goal with no one rallying cry issue to organize the masses and society as a whole around. Without focus a change never comes.

I could go on but let me end with this. Matt again brings up Clinton's statement about lazy youth and says the commenter's like me ignored it. Well maybe we ignored it Matt because you bringing it up was stupid. First of all you were posting about racism. Well Clinton's comments was not about Blacks. It was about youth in general. So all you were trying to do was paint Clinton, a life long champion of Black causes, as a racist and then juxtapose into that a comment she made as if was about Blacks. That's the same kind of shoddy journalism you complain about from the likes of Joe Klein. If you are going to complain about that kind of journalism from others then what makes it OK for you to turn around and do it yourself?

Back to Clinton's comment: Let's face the truth here. Even though there are plenty of ambitious hard working youths - there are also an equal number if not greater who are not - just like she said. And like I said there are a great many who won't get off their collective asses and hit the streets to cause change like the boomers did. Hitting the streets is 'work' and you can't be lazy and still do it. This twenty something generation is obviously to lazy to do it. So Clinton's comment has merit and if you don't like it then quit being lazy and people will not have cause to say such things.

Lastly - Matt, nice try in cleaning up what you were actually saying in your post. The fact of the matter is you are using one blatantly unsourced comment in a foreign newspaper to smear Clinton as a racist while more level headed people like Josh Marshall intelligently cast questions on the whole matter. It is perfectly clear that your dislike or hatred for Clinton is making you act in a manner that is not too appealing to even many of the Obama and Edwards supporters. Listen to your readers. When even non-Clinton supporters cast doubt on your tactics you have strayed way to far in your writing. And your attempt at cleaning things up in your 'update' by trying to recast what you said is not taking responsibility for what you really said in your post. Listen to your readers.

And why do you try to ignore all the Black support that Clinton has from Black federal Legislators, state legislators, Black churches, and private citizens like Mrs. Jesse Jackson or Magic Johnson? Obviously these people know Clinton is not a racist. But yet you ignore that. Rather than look at the fact that these people know Clinton is not a racist you instead trade on unsourced comments from unnamed people. When you compare the two...

Real Black Credible People supporting Clinton...

Versus usourced crap...

Which is more credible?


[ Parent ]
This is parody, right? (0.00 / 0)
I mean really!  It was MY generation, the Silent Generation, the generation of MLK and Robert Kennedy, who got the civil rights and the anti-war movements going, so that the Boomers had a vehicle to jump in when they felt rebellious. 

Sadly, we were overshadowed by the GI Generation and then the Boomers, and we will  be the only generation not to see one of our own elected President unless McCain makes it--but that's no reason to pick him, we understand it was because we lost two of our best to assassination, as well as Malcolm X. 

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Remember (0.00 / 0)
It was  MLK and Robert Kennedy and others of their generation that 'tapped into' the boomers to propel civil rights and womens freedoms. They were the leaders. But leaders without 'the masses' can't bring change by themselves. Leaders by themselves cannot force changes into society. It is society that has to be open to, want and embrace change. It is society that has to enact those changes. It is society that has to make those changes part of everyday life. And the boomers were that society.

So no, my post is not a parody. We were part of the change. It was our million of bodies in the street - not the bodies of the RFK generation. It was our passion for what the leaders preached that propelled it into the mainstream. It was our desire that made those changes live on long after people of MLK' and RFK's and JFK's generation tried to eliminate their dream by murdering them. It was our generation that never let the dream die.

Don't discount the very big and real role that the boomers had. Don't discount that without our resolve the dream would have died along with them.


[ Parent ]
I really hesitate in responding to you at all (0.00 / 0)
but witnessing you take credit for all the awesome things of the 1960s, I have a couple of questions for you.  Can you honestly say that racial and ethnic minorities are equal to whites in the United States today? Can you really say that women are equal to men in the United States today? Can you say that the experience of anti-war protesters in "stopping" the Vietnam War (electing and re-electing Nixon - great job on that front) shaped the future in such a way that we would forever avoid bloody, costly intractable foreign interventions?

My answer to all of those questions is no. The baby boomers held a great deal of potential in resolving all of these problems as they grew older, and certainly did do a great deal in their time, but give me a break - the promise of your generation is a promise left largely unfulfilled, so before you start ripping on young people for the things they're not doing, why don't you take a look at your own incomplete legacy first? Don't claim credit for all the super awesome amazing activist things you did and then say that today's young people are somehow supposed to take care of all the shit you didn't do.


[ Parent ]
Don't preach to me youngster (4.00 / 1)
You have a lot to be thankful for because of what we did do.  Things are better than what they were for what we did accomplish. But you neglect those things.

No generation in the history of man solves all the problems it faces. Neither will yours. Time and only time will reveal that truth to you.


[ Parent ]
Quick! (0.00 / 0)
We have to get the old folks home to the old folks' home!

[ Parent ]
thanks matt... (0.00 / 0)
can you post some stuff soon about electability after the post iowa/nh
shakeups....

thnaks


Pretty shaky journalism, Matt. (4.00 / 8)
According to the article by Josh Marshall, the quote you repeat "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool" is attributed to "some unidentified Clinton advisor".

And this is your source for saying "this is how Clintonistas think"?

Josh Marshall goes on to say that, "... 'advisor' is a notoriously slippery phrase that can mean almost anything. Campaigns have hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who in one fashion or another 'advise' them. A lot of those people aren't under any kind of real control."

So someone who is unidentified who is quoted by someone who is also unidentified and then quoted in the Guardian is enough for you to tar "Clintonistas" (whatever that means) and by implication, Hillary Clinton herself.


The fact of the matter (4.00 / 1)
is that this isn't the first time this has happened; it's one in a pattern of offensive statements made by Clinton, or actions undertaken by the Clinton campaign.  They've consistently denigrated young people, whether it is through a statement like the one above, her statement on how young people don't work hard, or how they went out of their way to suppress the legitimate votes of Iowa college students. 

The Clintons have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the Democratic Party - a status quo that could be radically changed with the involvement of new, passionate, progressive young people. 

If that were the case, we might finally get away from what commenters upthread have pointed out - that senior citizens have a completely undue influence on the political process, and we hear about how we need to try our elders with respect and dignity, but the fact of the matter is that for all I hear about needing to provide all these awesome services to seniors (a lot of which are needed), there are four times as many impoverished children as there are senior citizens, and children in general are twice as likely to be impoverished as seniors. 

So whenever I hear shit come out of the Clinton campaign in this regard, it really annoys me and makes me wonder how I ever contemplated even considering her as a viable option.


[ Parent ]
You don't read. (0.00 / 0)
This quote is not coming "out of the Clinton campaign".

It is a quote by an unidentified source quoting another unidentified source.


[ Parent ]
I do read (4.00 / 1)
and if this was the only time this has ever happened, I would be duly skeptical. Maybe you should wake up and realize that even if it wasn't true, the Clinton campaign has at other times openly demonized young people, and so after the first time, and after the second time, the third time looks all the more likely. If the shoe fits.

[ Parent ]
"Even if it wasn't true".... (0.00 / 0)
What you're saying is that you don't like Clinton.

So some unsubstantiated quote from an anonymous source is enough to reinforce views you already hold.


[ Parent ]
I don't like her (4.00 / 1)
if only because of what she's undeniably done.  Are you denying the fact that she categorically stated that young people have no idea what it's like to work hard, and that her campaign sought to at best de-legitimize the legal votes of young Iowa citizens>

[ Parent ]
To denigrate someone (3.00 / 4)
for something "even if it isn't true" is just plain dumb ass wrong.  If you were an accurate example of the younger generation, then I fear for our future.

[ Parent ]
I'm denigrating her (4.00 / 1)
not just for that, as I agree with you that there's a chance it may not be true. I'm denigrating her for what's already been done - criticizing the work ethic of young people, the Iowa young voter tactics. All I'm saying is that if true, it's part of a troubling part that doesn't sit well with me, and shouldn't with any progressive Democrat.

[ Parent ]
It's a quote from an anonymous advisor given to the Guardian, (0.00 / 0)
a paper considered by some to be the best in the world. It's not "an unidentified source quoting another unidentified source."

[ Parent ]
Freedland is no hack (0.00 / 0)
He provides great insight into US and UK politics from a left-leaning point of view, and has been for years.  If he says their an advisor to the Clinton campaign, I'll take him at his word.

[ Parent ]
From One of those Old Clintonistas (4.00 / 6)
Matt, I was begging money to get Martin Luther King out of jail back in the '50's and standing up against racism in the service in the early '60's, and much more while teaching in a university--always getting in Dutch because I couldn't shut up.  It's so easy to tar whole classes with the big brush--I expect that from Drudge's not from us.  I don't think that way, but, I must because you know "how Clintonistas think."

Doc Rock


snow (0.00 / 1)
Did you walk ten miles to school in the snow and blah blah blah.

Psst: let me give you some advice.  telling young people they  can never live up to this imaginary idea you have of yourself in your youth, while it may make you feel superior, is a turn off.

 


[ Parent ]
Then be (4.00 / 2)
turned off.  These broad brush attacks are stupid to the core but it's what I guess we should expect from the taliban of the authoritarian left blogistan.  Pull some crap quotes out of the air, and context, and tar a whole generation. 


[ Parent ]
Jonah Goldberg (0.00 / 0)
Is that you?

[ Parent ]
My Point (4.00 / 1)
. . . was just because I support Clinton doesn't make me any more of a racist than someone else's supporting Obama, makes them a sexist.  Matt Syoller writes some good shit, but this article smeared many with no justification--I'd expect that from Fox, not from OpenLeft.

Doc Rock  (blah, blah, bite me)


[ Parent ]
His point (0.00 / 0)
was racism is more prevalent in the boomer age group.  That is accurate.

If you did so much for racial justice in your youth, i would think now you would want to make clear to the Clinton campaign that you don't approve of what they are doing.  that doesn't mean not supporting them, but voicing your concerns.  Clinton after all doesn't think MLK was all that important since LBJ passed civil rights legislation.  If you fought and went to jail for these values in your youth, is it really to much to ask to voice concerns about the racial tone of her campaign?


[ Parent ]
If so, you are not a Boomer. (0.00 / 0)
You're the Silent Generation (like me, born 1942) who never really got credit for what we did BEFORE the Boomers came along ;-). I think Matt's point was as much generational.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh smell the coffee guys and gals! (4.00 / 3)
I'm one of the nasty power hungry 'Boomers' yeah! Usta hang with these kind of folks:

http://takeaction.wo...

What you callow youth, this means everybody here near as I can figure, don't seem to grasp is that who the Hill sounds like is:

Nixon

Reagan

Bush I

You knoooooooooooooow Republicans! And Obama does the same thing; he just gets away with it more 'cause he's black and folks figure, 'Hmmmmm....musta heard that wrong...he didn't really say That...'

Wake the fuck up!

He did...She did...

All these folks are on the same side and it ain't the...

Boomers side...

Gen X...

Millenials...

Women...

Older Women..

Black people...

Brown people....

LGBT folks...

Asians...

Nope, it's the folks with all the goddamn money. It's the fukin' money folks. What the Democratic candidates, with the exception of Edwards, are doing is dog-whistling for dollars.

And I'd really be pleased if you'd stop talking about 'Boomers' as if we were all the same.

We are not. No more than everyone Chris's age is a frikin' Libertarian.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


Two things (4.00 / 1)
a) The Clintons are indeed guilty of using race, but they aren't wrong with regard to some of Obama's base of support. There is the issue of the 'magic negro' syndrome that I see with way to many white middle class liberals when it comes to Obama's run.

Here is some of what I wrote on the subject of race politics with white liberals that I wrote over at mydd:

"I've read variants of the following arguments (although the writers/speakers rarely see it that way):

a) "Magical negro": There are two kinds of Black people, and Obama is cool because he's, well, he's not like those other ones."

b) "If I choose Obama, I live in a colorblind society."

c) "Choosing Obama solves all the problems that blacks face such as imprisonment, lower wages, poorer health, etc."

d) "Black=progressive" This one I've almos felt at times some of Bowers posts whether intentional or not teetered in the direction. When he was talking about something about Obama that naturally attracts him- I kept thinking- if this were a white candidate would you have felt so attracted? I never asked but since you have done several posts on race, i feel I can bring it up with out being attacked.

e) Obama has to speak in code because he is black, and, therefore, we should not expect forthrightness (or at at least that seems to be the point) about his agenda."

http://www.mydd.com/...

Bonus here is an amazing diary on the subject of polite racism in the form of the 'magic negro' syndrome that goes deeper when it comes to some of Obama's support:

http://www.dailykos....

If you are tired of race being miss used, so am I. But what do you expect if we can't talk honestly about race? Let's try to bring some real discussion about all these various arguments that I've heard or implicitedly defined with in  the arguments of some liberals. I've had some question my blackness because  I didn't support Obama. There is "an end of racism in America" element to this race that really bothers me.

b) Clinton has no room to talk because she uses gender in a way that does that's designed to cover up what are her faults as a candidate. Are others sexist in the press and politics? Sure. But some of the ways she has been using the gender card to gloss over here faults isn't about sexism, it's about her being a politician. One behavior- those of the sexists- doesn't justify the other. I've seen you here make that mistake. So is it any surprise that id politics can be misused in such a way now by the campaigns?

There are to me appropriate ways to use id politics, and innappropriate. THe massive way its been used in this campaign isn't a good way.

I talk about id politics here in greater detail:

http://www.mydd.com/...

Unless we admit there is a dark and bright side, it's hard to prevent these bad sides from occuring.


proving the point (0.00 / 0)
There is the issue of the 'magic negro' syndrome that I see with way to many white middle class liberals when it comes to Obama's run.

This comment illustrates the problem with Clinton supporters and their generation, and makes clear why it is so important to end boomers dominance on power.  It is the only way the country will ever move on.


[ Parent ]
OMG (0.00 / 0)
imaginary hip black friend

That's like the "magical negro."

Banned for posting five straight diaries.


Deep breaths, everybody. (4.00 / 1)
Clinton ranks low among the Democratic candidates for me, but this "news item" is way too sketchily sourced for me to lend it any credibility.

First, a lot of us among the lefty blogosphere justifiably criticize reporters for their cavalier use of "unnamed sources."  For consistency's sake, should we not apply that critique to this "news item" as well?

Second, even if this statement does reflect a certain mode of thinking among certain advisors of the Clinton campaign, impugning this mode of thinking upon the entirety of the "Clintonistas," and then upon an entire "Clinton Generation" requires more than a single, anonymously delivered statement from a single person.

Deep breaths, everybody.

my web log.


Is this all you got? (4.00 / 1)
I have a feeling that much worse things are said every five minutes by some "Clintonista" or "Obamaniac" trying to act tough.  It doesn't tell us anything about the candidates. 

I have a feeling (0.00 / 0)
Unicorns fly over strawberry fields and apple orchards. That makes it true, right?

[ Parent ]
Um, The Guardian? (4.00 / 1)
An "adviser" said something to The Guardian?

Knock it off, Matt. We know less than nothing about this without better sourcing.


Pretty Weak (4.00 / 2)
I honestly can't believe I'm saying anything in defense of baby boomers, even if I am a Clinton supporter, but to take one comment by an anonymous "advisor" and extrapolate it to say something about every single Clintonista is a bit much don't you think?  Especially for someone who is complaining about cultural racism?  Isn't that what you're engaged in, a kind of cultural ageism?

And not for nothing, Obama is a baby boomer.

And you don't know how old the anonymous advisor is.  Yes, most people around the Clintons are baby boomers, but not all.  For all we know, it's some dorky 32-year-old who said it.  (Okay, I doubt it given the word "hip" but weirder things have happened.)

And, honestly, the idea that the baby boomers who surround the Clintons, some of whom were active in the civil rights battles of the 1960s and 70s, are cultural racists is ridiculous.  They may speak of race and think about race differently than younger generations, but that doesn't mean they are racists.  It just means they grew up in a different time and have different experiences.  And if the new generation is less racist than Baby Boomers, it's largely because of the work that previous generations, including baby boomers, did.

There has been a lot of race stuff coming from both the Obama campaign (Jesse Jackson, Jr., who I don't believe is a baby boomer) and from folks associated to various degrees with the Clintons.  They all need to calm down and back away, IMO, because this isn't going to get us anywhere.

Neither are posts like this, which only add generational conflict to the entire mess.

As for being prejudiced against the young, most older folks are.  Because life is hard and you learn things through experience.  I know young folks hate to hear that, but it's true.  Which isn't to dismiss the young, who have their own strengths (idealism, energy, etc.), but every generation thinks younger folks are wet behind the ears and don't know what they're doing.  There's nothing unique about that to Baby Boomers or the Clintonistas.  And the very young people complaining about it today, will have the same attitude toward the young when they're 60.  Afterall, the Boomers are the ones who once said never trust anyone over 30.


Oy (4.00 / 2)
Stick to your day job.

Psychoanalyzing the Clintons isn't your forte.

And the ease and joy at which you use the word "racism" is pretty sad.

Sourcing the Guardian to make outlandish conclusions is pathetic. Harvard would be proud.

This election becomes about race, Obama and the Democrats lose.

Watch moderate and white democrats run if this starts to look like a Sharpton/Jesse Jackson racism debate over every thing someone says about Obama.



One remembers George Wallace: (0.00 / 0)
"You shout four letter words at me, well, I have two for you: S-O-A-P and W-O-R-K."

Clinton "generation" (4.00 / 2)
Matt - I'm with you on this but please don't insult my generation by identifying Clintonista syndrome with my age group. It's class and privilege not age.

Agree (0.00 / 0)
See my post above.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Racism vs sexism (0.00 / 0)
My opinion is if the narrative is racism Obama wins.  If the narrative is sexism Hillary wins.  Racist whites were never voting for obama in the primary so it isn't going to hurt him if the narrative is about racism

Quite frankly the electability argument was always about racism and sexism too.  It was just always couched under "I support edwards because I think he is the most liberal because I don't care about issues like racism and sexism"


That's unfair (4.00 / 1)
I didn't come down for Edwards, but it isn't fair to say that people only support him because of racism or sexism. The people I know to have picked him as a candidate are usually well versed on the issues and want him as the nominee on that basis, and claims regarding his electability can be made based on polling data that show he is indeed electable.

There are actually policy differences between the three candidates. I hope people are still allowed to care about that. Yeesh.


[ Parent ]
Sure (0.00 / 0)
But that isn't what I said.

[ Parent ]
The Race Card Is A Sure Loser (0.00 / 0)
The idea that the Clintons are racist is beyond absurd.

Further, if the Obama campaign continues to cry "racism" every time a compliment (read Biden) or criticism is made of him or his record, he will lose a big chunk of his potential white vote.

While I don't doubt Obama's desire to bring people together, I question that the best way to do it is by decrying the battles of the '90's while simultaneously embracing the battles of the '60's.


You serious? (0.00 / 0)
http://www.cnn.com/2...
"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

Biden meant well, but if you think that comment didn't have racial overtones, you have your head in the sand.  Also, Obama did not cry racism:

http://www.desmoines...


[ Parent ]
Obama defended Biden (0.00 / 0)
It was clear he meant well, Clinton's seem intentional, they think there is something to gain by bringing this stuff up.

[ Parent ]
And the Point Is? (0.00 / 0)
Okay, Matt has been duly spanked and I hate to add on but here's the thing.  Why take a cheap shot at Clinton when there are so many legitimate shots to be taken.  In the end this makes her candidacy look more viable.  It is sort of sad that on a progressive blog we have so much discussion about which of these candidates is more or less progressive.  Neither of them is progressive.  Their efforts are not driven by considerations of white, black or brown.  They are driven by the color green and they serve those who have the most of it.  In my opinion the fact that neither of them supports single payer healthcare makes both of them racist, sexist, and anti-child.  Just look at the demographics of those most hurt by their support of giant insurance corporations.  Who the hell cares what some possible downstream Clinton hack says about youth and race when she has knowingly taken money from Rupert Murdoch?  Is it not racist to allow yourself to be influenced by the man behind Fox News?  I would hope that progressive dialogue would be more about connecting the dots then bickering over such trifling. 

On Gen Y and Clinton (0.00 / 0)
I'll hazard a guess here that much of the back-and-forth on this site, is between those in their 20's and those who are middle aged.  There are good reasons for supporting Hillary Clinton, but it will be extremely hard for young people to get behind her, should she win the nomination.  Campaigning against "false hopes" and having surrogates parrot race-baiting and anti-Gen Y talking points will not score any points with the most diverse generation in American history.  The Clinton campaign's apparent embrace of a "Southern strategy" is unfortunate and will likely alienate her from progressive young people even more.  She mentioned LBJ the other day, but her campaign's most logical inspiration is Richard Nixon.

I"m not so sure about that (0.00 / 0)
People said much the same about Dean and Kerry but young people came out huge for Kerry in the general election.  Highest turnout in over a decade (49% vs. 40% in 2000) and a clear advantage to Kerry over Bush (54 - 45% vs a tie between Gore and Bush).

Come the fall, change is change, and a Democrat will bring that change more than a Republican.  People will be disappointed, but pragmatic about it. 

Youth To Power: How Today's Young Voters Are Building Tomorrow's Progressive Majority


[ Parent ]
True, to an extent (0.00 / 0)
Young people will still vote overwhelmingly Democratic in November.  However, I doubt you'll see nearly the amount of activist support or voter turnout for Hillary than for Obama.  That type of support could turn a win into a landslide and end the vise that senior citizens have on American politics.

[ Parent ]
I can't believe you are writing about (4.00 / 3)
a supposed comment by a supposed "clinton supporter"---which  doesn't imply any affiliation with the Clinton campaign.
The story was garbage, as is this post.
You might as well start using Novak as a source if you're going to stoop to this level.

Hispanics Loath The Race Card (0.00 / 0)
By continually playing the race card, the Obama campaign will only increase Clinton's already-strong support among Hispanics.

At a certain point, a pattern emerges (0.00 / 0)
So Barack Obama's campaign, saying "At a certain point, a pattern emerges" is playing the race card?
Let's see here:
Shaheen drug dealer comment
Penn decrying that comment while bringing up again and again
Bill Clinton fairy tale comment
Young, hip black friend comment
LBJ is the real hero of the civil rights movement comment
False hopes narrative
Cuomo shucking and jiving comment
HRC's part-time state senator comment (implication of laziness)

My guess is if these were vaguely sexist comments, you'd be completely outraged at the attacks on HRC.  These type of race-baiting w/o being racist comments are straight out of Karl Rove's playbook, with the Clintons wanting portray Barack Obama as the black candidate for president.

Yet, according to you, this is all Obama's fault.


[ Parent ]
Comment on the update (0.00 / 0)
I would have been much more impressed if you had admitted that you made a mistake and gone on rather than focusing on your dispute with others in the face of your own rather significant journalistic faux pas.  Bad Matt, bad.

How about this? (4.00 / 1)
I'm constantly amazed that Matt can write without irony about the elitism of the Clinton "movement" (for lack of a better term).

Consistently on this website, there is talk about how great it would be to have an alliance of the "creative class" and "african americans."  And this, coming from two straight white guys.  The subtext I read is "why can't black people just realize that we know what is right for them."  If that isn't elitism, I just don't know what is.

Now, I'm not arguing that that the boomer political leadership isn't elitist.  I mean, I'm pretty sure that all political leadership cadres have some elitism built in.  That seems almost definitional.  If you aspire to be a political leader, in some sense you must believe you are doing so because you think you know what's best for others.

But, I feel the need to remind you that Clinton's base of support comes from the working class, from women, from the elderly, from minorities, from gay americans.  Might it just be that these people are onto something?


And it could be (0.00 / 0)
that they are just stupid.  As you seem to be pointing out it would be biased to think that people of every race, gender and hair style are not just as capable of being self-serving and stupid as anyone else.  The test is not whether someone thinks that they are correct, it is how capable they are of creating solutions that consider everyone including future generations.  This, it would seem, is the goal of democracy and the essence of what it is to be progressive.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
But splitting the world into "smart" and "stupid" people should not be essence of progessivism.  At least if it has any chance of success.  That's exactly the point I was trying to make.

[ Parent ]
It ill behooves people who call themselves "democrats" (0.00 / 0)
To constantly belittle "the people."  Especially people who are not political activists, or who disagree with one.  Think about it.  No one ever made many converts talking down to their intended audience.  Not everyone wants to spend their time debating politics, and it is for us activists to help them understand the relevance of political choices to their current not-so-hot economic situation.  But not in a way that insults.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
I think that the point (0.00 / 0)
is that we all capable of being stupid and it is important that we be able to take note when we are so that we can learn and grow from it.  As important as it is for us to point out the stupidity of Republicans, it is even more important for us to point out that of Democrats.  I say that with confidence that we can make the most of this information. I agree that it is generally not in good form to call anyone stupid.  Occasionally it goes to the point, not just of the reasoning, but of the nature of the reasoning.  Claiming that a point or a candidate is valid simply because it is accepted by a certain demographic is such a point.  Noting that people are capable of being stupid is hardly insulting. It is a truism. 

[ Parent ]
Cuomo Transcript: MUST READ (4.00 / 1)
Cuomo was talking about politics in general, mentioning Clinton and Gore even--not Obama.  Read it yourself:

http://blogs.timesun...

Andrew Cuomo: You know I've spent a lot of time in other races, especially in Iowa and in New Hampshire, back with Gore and back with Clinton. Those races require you to do something no other race does, you know, and I like it, and I agree with you, it's a good thing. It's not a TV-crazed race, you know, you can't just buy your way through that race [FD: Airport press conference and the media markets…..], it doesn't work that way, it's frankly a more demanding process. You have to get on a bus, you have to go into a diner, you have to shake hands, you have to sit down with ten people in a living room. You can't shuck and jive at a press conference, you can't just put off reporters, because you have real people looking at you saying answer the question, you know, and all those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room. And I think it's good for the candidates, I think it makes the candidates communicate in a way that works with real people because you know in a living room right away whether or not you're communicating, and I think the questions are good and I think the scrutiny is good, so you can, you can say they're small states and they get a lot of attention - they are very good for the process, I believe that.


Just to Be Clear (0.00 / 0)
I don't think it was the best choice of words due to its racial association.  Perhaps this term was popular during Cuomo's early days and maybe that's why he felt comfortable using it to describe campaigning during the primaries?  Honestly, to me it's sounds like something out of a time warp, from the '50s.  I can only think of the current casual use of hip hop slang, which is generally "racial," as a comparison (if there is one).

[ Parent ]
Update #2 "Andrew Cuomo said that Obama can't 'suck and jive' at a press conference" (0.00 / 0)
Hey damn it, can you fucking read?  If you read the transcript of Andrew Cuomo's appearance on that radio show, he clearly was not talking about Barack Obama.  He was responding to a question about politicians in general and the differences in campaigning in Iowa and NH.

I know it doesn't fit your preconceived notion, but you ought to at least try and understand your subject before running off at the mouth, again.


Having read the full quote (0.00 / 0)
I still agree with Matt.  It's like if you were running against Barney Frank and said, "you have to get real with people, you can't just be some cocksucker up on a stage."  Of course the comment would be about Frank.  The language used was absolutely abhorrent, and Clinton and her campaign should be ashamed.  Not that I'm surprised given who the candidate is.

And before you say it, I'm not supporting ANY candidate in this race, though I'm most definitely anti-Clinton (both of them).

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future


[ Parent ]
Seriously? (0.00 / 0)
Shucks and jive--slang--when using to describe politics is now "absolutely abhorrent?"  You must be kidding me.  At worst, the man didn't use the best words but that's slang.  A lot of slang has been incorporate from black America.  And it's not an insult in itself, like "cocksucker," while "shucks and jive" depends on context to be insulting.

If you were to use those same standards against Obama there'd have been an uproar over Obama himself making what can be called gender "insensitive" comments (drinking tea comment, for one).  I thought it was a little petty, but nothing serious--at all.

What's truly abhorrent is stating that Cuomo used it to refer to Obama and keeping it on this blog without fixing it.

But let's apply legitimate standards to Obama staffers and supporters.  How about Jesse Jackson, Jr. (National co-chair, I believe) stating not only that Clinton manufactured her non-existent "tears," but stating that she shed no tears for Katrina?  Isn't that disgusting?  Or Eric Dyson (a supporter) stating that when Clinton commented that she was ready to lead and Obama was not that there was "racial subtext" (i.e. criticism of Obama is inherently racist)?


[ Parent ]
Controversial? (0.00 / 0)
Before we talk about evacuating the eastern seaboard, we need to get rid of Mitch McConnell and Dianne Feinstein. Let's leave the psychobabble to Maureen Dowd.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search