Earlier today, Hillary Clinton attended a Martin Luther King, Jr. rally in New York to deliver a speech to an audience of mostly African-Americans and Hispanics. The audience's reaction to her speech spawned many news headlines, ranging from Clinton booed at MLK rally in New York to Clinton Gets Respectful Applause At MLK Observance. Despite the wide gamut of the headlines, it seems to me that her speech was not a smashing success and that her reception could have been better.The response by the audience was most likely due to Clinton's recent struggle with racial controversy. For example, last week during a televised interview, Clinton committed a (debatable) faux pas that angered the African-American community:
Contextual note: the "false hope" she is referring to is Barack Obama, not MLK, Jr.
Andrew Sullivan explains Clinton's alienation from African-American voters, stating that:
it was another low-point in Clinton's attempt to rescue her candidacy. Belittling the work of King and elevating the work of Johnson is not the best way to appeal to crucial African-American voters.Although I initially shared the Sullivan's viewpoint, I now agree with Earl Ofari Hutchinson, in that:
If Hillary could be faulted for anything it's that she didn't go far enough. If Johnson hadn't forcefully intervened and jawboned, prodded, arm twisted, and embarrassed the slew of wavering and hostile Congressmen to the bill into supporting the bill, or at least tempering their opposition to it, King's dream would have remained just that, an empty dream.
However, given Hillary's "lukewarm" reception in her own state, it appears that many African-Americans (and perhaps other minorities) do not share my disposition. With elections in Southern states approaching quickly (South Carolina on January 26th and Florida on January 29th), Clinton will most likely reacquaint herself with minority voters in the Las Vegas debate tomorrow.
2 comments:
So I had a conversation with my boy today, J J J J and here is a question I have that relates to this post. I asked, why are some people willing to vote for a candidate just because of race: AKA African Americans=Obama; Women=Hillary; Men= men. This is an extreme overstatement, yes many do not follow this spectrum I am in the class. But his response was, how come some individuals won't vote for a candidate because of their race/gender? As I had not thought about that approach for a while, I began to wonder, does it matter if Hillary doesn't receive approval from African Americans but does receive approval from others? I do not know, but I do know a presidential candidate does not usually incorporate EVERYONE'S vote.
So with that thought, why does it matter if in New York she did not receive the greatest approval by voters who are not going to vote for her anyway? (Yes I know she should still try to get some of the ones up in the air) But it just kind of seemed like if Bush was talking to Clinton supporters, are you expecting a better response? Just because Hillary is speaking does not mean the entire audience supports her! What happens if after her speech the entire audience was speechless with approval(clapless too), except for one man who booed. I guess all these people would only talk about that right?
I just want to give mike kuo some props for a very in depth, quoted, and linked post because this was way more informative and analytical than the other "professional" stuff out there. keep it up!
also, regarding the actual content: I think that people blow the race issue out of proportion because it is historically significant and they basically want to make history as well. People like to get worked up about things like race because they believe it makes them feel more intellectual or proud of their heritage- ultimately, it's not such a big deal. (or is it? ...)
Post a Comment