But Voyager, all of that happened years ago. And while some may say that demanding long form birth certificates from our first African American president was barely concealed racist pandering, I say no, not necessarily. Maybe Trump just loves collecting documents.
Let’s be fair!
The Alt-Right groups seem to feel like this is their big coming out. They’re excited that Hillary is bringing attention to them and their ideas.
The 'Alt-Right' Is Thrilled By Hillary Clinton's Denunciation | HuffPost Latest News?
They’re happy that they can get a chance now to argue that they are the true, mainstream, Republican party these days.
It’s hilarious that just a few months ago, Breitbart published an article about how the Alt-Right are the “dangerously bright”, sociopathic libertarians, but after last night, Alt-right has become synonoumous with white supremacist. Good job, Hillary!
My take is that sort of analysis is the commentator’s job (eg me and you). The job of the President (one of them) is coalition maintenance.
On the substance, there’s a distinction between dog whistling (done by decades by the GOP) and fog-horning. Trump is a fog horner. The GOP establishment want to go back to dog whistling, outside of state and local politics in parts of the deep south. So yeah, I agree with you analytically. I just think that Hillary Clinton’s first job is to win the election and her second job is to secure a Democratic congress. She needs to peel off voters, not attack them for responding favorably to dog whistles.
Hillary did the right thing. Note that by explicitly IDing the Alt-Right, it made it conceivable for the mainstream media to discuss whether “White Nationalism” really covers what they are doing. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Even better, by giving specific examples of non-racist top Republicans (two of who don’t support Trump) she is saying that Republicans aren’t racist per se, but those who support Trump - well maybe. But they can be saved. And she isn’t even really asking for their vote. It is not like Romney or Shrub is about to vote for her, after all.
McCain is the exception - but he is a hostage to the wackos.
I’m fair. I just want to horsewhip him, not flay him. What can be fairer than that?
Reasonable people we can compromise on 40 lashes. It is only the completely unreasonable people who refuse to have this conversation.
Clinton ties Trump to the KKK. What’s the problem here? Trump has tied himself to the racists already
Well, as everything else, the problem with our society today is that the media has thrown away any semblance of Journalism (not that there ever was much) in the name of “fairness” (not pissing anyone off if they can help it) and ratings.
As I said to a co-worker the other day, the “News” media has completely surrendered to the business model that allows “Some say the Earth is round. Many say it is flat. Let’s examine the controversy!”
Meaning, in the context of this thread, that the media had every opportunity to call him out months ago, toyed with it then threw their hands up and gave him a free ride.
Even as a conservative I have to say that any so-called new lows for Hillary are still a Mount Everest above Trump’s highest high.
Maybe that’s why he won’t let go of his tax returns?
Trump screwed up on this one. He’s been talking the race issue for the last week or so, saying that Clinton is a bigot and blacks should vote for him.
I think his expectation was that Clinton would defend herself and point out all the things she’s done for blacks in the past and will do for them in the future. And the Trump would take her remarks out of context and claim that Clinton is anti-white.
Trump was expecting that Clinton would do what he would do in any situation: make the issue about himself. But Clinton showed once again that she’s a better campaigner than Trump is. She didn’t talk about her record; she talked about Trump’s record. The possibility that a candidate would deflect attention away from themselves probably never occurred to Trump.
Tarring and feathering then run out of town on a rail is more traditional.
Well, we couldn’t just run him out of town, we’d have to run him out of the whole damn country!
Hmmm. Let me think on that a moment…
Have you read the Washington Post in the last six months? Even I think they are starting to go a little overboard on Trump. They are starting to look like the New York Post in terms of relentless criticism of a political opponent.
My reservations of the Post’s relentless criticism of Trump are tempered by my view that Trump deserves every word of what they have written. But for sure, there’s no pretense of fairness or pulling punches.
I like your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. 
I’m slightly disappointed that my recent coinage of “doghorn” hasn’t taken off.
Well, I am not sure if "Dog Whistles’ are a real thing. But even if so, Trump is not capable of that level of subtlety. Fog Horn is a better term.
Part 2: The next ad is out.
The point of Hillary’s remarks was to give permission to the press to discuss whether Trump is a racist. Otherwise they would tap dance around it. Clinton’s remarks makes mhendo’s historical discussion possible outside of Vox.com and other reality-centric operations.
WAPO is the bastion of opinions-on-the-shape-of-the-earth-differ journalism. So what happened? Reliable media sources like Vox.com, 538, and Kevin Drum rely on data. Traditional media sources rely on access. So the reporters bend over backwards to avoid giving the impression that they are taking sides. Because they care about scoops, even if their coverage misleads their readers.
WAPO has a great deal of access inside Washington. And GOP congressmen and woman don’t care if the media trashes Trump. In fact, they like it. Note how few of them are coming to Trump’s defense when he is accused of bigotry. Republican leaders recognize that a Hillary victory, however unpalatable, is far better for their medium run interests than a failed Trump Presidency. They quietly endorse the attacks on Trump - the dog has not barked.
I got facts. Ezra Klein: [INDENT][INDENT] A quick story. Back during the primaries, I published a piece — and recorded a video — calling Donald Trump’s rise a terrifying moment in American politics. The analysis was unsparing.
“Trump is the most dangerous major candidate for president in memory,” I wrote. “He pairs terrible ideas with an alarming temperament; he’s a racist, a sexist, and a demagogue, but he’s also a narcissist, a bully, and a dilettante. He lies so constantly and so fluently that it’s hard to know if he even realizes he’s lying.”
After the piece published, I got a call from a very conservative Republican member of Congress. He wanted to talk about the article, his office said. I figured he’d be angry. Instead, he congratulated me for speaking out.
That member of Congress, by the way, has now endorsed Trump.
I think this is why the Washington Post, for instance, isn’t panicking over being banned from Trump’s events. If the Post believed the Republican Party had turned on it so sharply that it was now permanently blacklisted from doing even basic reporting on GOP campaigns, it would be an institutional crisis.
But the Post doesn’t believe that’s what Trump’s reaction represents, because Trump doesn’t speak for the Republican Party. Plenty of Republicans are happy to see the excellent, critical coverage the paper has offered of Trump and are appalled by Trump’s petulant reaction. The Post’s long-term relationships on the right aren’t imperiled by its feud with the Trump campaign — they may even be being strengthened by it. [/INDENT][/INDENT] The media vs. Donald Trump: why the press feels so free to criticize the Republican nominee | Vox
Oh, and you can bet that WAPO will later allude to its aggressive Trump coverage and call it courage. It is not. It is a continuance of self interest.