I get what you’re saying but I think you’re drifting wayward. I think even you as a conservative would have to acknowledge that the proverbial shoe fit for many of Trump’s supporters. That doesn’t mean that it was a wise thing to say, but I doubt that the people she was referring to were really, truly offended by what she said. It seems that they’re pretty much beneath being offended, as evidenced by the fact that many of them took to twitter practically wearing the label of #deplorable on their sleeve as some sort of badge of honor. At worst, the comment made Clinton appear out of touch with white suburban and rural America but the comment was probably more of a symptom and not a disease.
Had it been someone with a little more, oh, ‘country road cred’ or ‘coal mine cred’, I doubt it would have been problematic. Joe Biden could have said it and it would have been an example of ‘Ah, just Joe shootin’ off his mouth again. There is never anything wrong with pointing out to voters when they are voting for a Nazi. You just can’t expect to win a race if that’s the only thing you’ve got going for you. Clinton was unliked in part because frankly she didn’t really like Trump voters on a personal level. Obama didn’t either, but he was better at brushing them aside and communicating with them even when it was clear that he didn’t have many takers. Clinton stayed where she felt comfortable and that’s probably where she lost the race, and she didn’t really lose by that much anyway. I don’t want to have another discussion on what went wrong for Hillary but I’m just rejecting the idea that Democrats will lose races if they don’t take a stand against bigots – they absolutely must take a stand against Republican bigotry. They just have to offer items on the menu than “You’re a racist”
And lest we forget: many Trump voters are absolutely, positively bigoted and seem proud of that fact. The idea that we can’t talk about this is absurd. We absolutely can and should talk about it. I can agree that just talking about how bad Trump and his voters are won’t win anything, but by that same token, if Democrats are looking to inspire a diverse group of voters to the polls, I can’t think of anything more uninspiring than being timid in the face of a growing national crisis. That’s a good way to lose a generation of progressives for sure. One of the Democrats problem over the past 10-20 years is that they’ve lacked a spine.
Half of the 62,984,825 were so insulted by that unfair characterization that they voted for Trump along with the actual racists and bigots just to prove her wrong?
Were these some of the same “good people” that marched along side the neo-nazis in Charlottesville?
Are these the same people who after 8 months of Trump’s presidency would overwhelmingly cast their vote for Trump again today?
You claim to have held your nose and voted for HRC, yet you repeatedly defend the indefensible.
Perhaps it’s just an occupational hazard for you, or, perhaps the lesson you’ve yet to learn, is that when people tell you who they are, it behooves you to listen rather than make excuses for them.
The reality is that Romney stretched or did not tell the truth more often and harder than Obama.
Because until recently one expected more honesty, but just a touch of evil from a winning candidate, you are defending a “kick in the pants” of evil guy over a candidate that was more honest in the past election.
Because the day I vote for someone as intellectually and morally bankrupt, someone who lies that often, someone that disgusting and harmful to American politics… That’s the day I figure out how to tie a fucking noose.
I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. Taking a stand against bigots is proper. Declaring that half your opponent’s supporters are bigots is the distraction. Just attack the bigots.
It didn’t “cover” all of them. She was pretty specific as to who belongs in that basket. She didn’t include “people who hate Hillary/Democrats as a default option.” Those folks chose to climb in the basket.
So you’re saying politicians should ignore people like Neo-Nazis and Klansmen and just let them have their fun? Don’t actively endorse them. But don’t actively oppose them either. Just make vague statements that don’t offend anyone and avoid taking sides.
Clinton did preface her gross generalization with the actual words “just to be grossly generalistic.” It’s funny – her remarks are far more empathetic and understanding of her opponent’s voters’ motivations than anything I ever heard Trump say about her voters.
Obama’s 2008 remarks about people bitterly clinging to guns and religion were treated as insulting, too. But he was sympathetic to the people he was describing. He just thought they were wrong, and was trying to figure out why.
People apparently don’t like being patronized. Especially people with ignorant or bigoted opinions, maybe. The question is: how does one argue against ignorance and bigotry without being patronizing? Is it worth trying to do so?
But notice how you re-frame the debate to focus on the worst of the cases? Clinton’s words were “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic – you name it.”
You mention neo-Nazis and Klansman.
How about others? People who want a stricter immigration policy. Is it wise to call them all xenophobic? People who think there’s a concern in forcing bakers to design custom cakes for same-sex marriages – are they all bigots? People who oppose affirmative action programs – are they all racists?
Answering “yes” to those questions is something I sense you’re probably not too unwilling to do.