What exactly is Clinton proposing that would end racism, sexism, and discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community? Seriously. What proposals of hers is she claiming would DO THAT?
“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, “would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?,” she said, using an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. “Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight?”
— Hillary Clinton, Shifting Line of Attack, Paints Bernie Sanders as a One-Issue Candidate, Nicholas Confessore and Yamiche Alcindor, yesterday
Would that make people feel more welcoming to immigrants overnight? Probably not. But neither would it make people feel less welcoming to immigrants. Nor would it make immigrants themselves feel less welcome.
But this surely would, as a Feb. 12 New York Times editorial makes clear:
In Thursday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton defended her past statements that Central American migrant children needed to be sent home from the border to “send a message” to other families: Don’t come.
“Wrong answer — which Bernie Sanders immediately pointed out,” the editorial continued.
“Who are you sending a message to?” he said, reminding her that mothers and children were fleeing Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala to avoid being murdered. “I don’t think we use them to send a message. I think we welcome them into this country and do the best we can to help them get their lives together.”
The editorial explained:
It was after the number of Central American migrant children at the border spiked in 2014 that she said they should be sent back to send a message. “Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean the child gets to stay,” she said. Now she says children should have access to lawyers and not be held in family prisons, but she was tripped up again by her “send a message” line.
As it happens, I remember that interview comment of Clinton’s from June or July 2014, during her book tour. I remember her emphasizing “just because” and dragging out the “doesn’t mean”. “Duuuuuuhsn’t mean ….”
I also remember that she said this at about the same time that Sam Brownback—Sam Brownback—spoke on the issue, in a soft, empathetic tone, albeit while saying that he thought the children would have to be sent back.
Sam Brownback sounded empathetic. Clinton, let’s just say, did not. There was nothing in Clinton’s tone that suggested empathy. Nothing. It was said in a schoolmarmish voice, a seriously-off-kilter tone. It sent chills down my spine.
But that was in 2014. And this is Clinton’s Sanders-is-a-single-issue-candidate-whose-single-issue-won’t-make-Americans’-lives-better week. Or two. And in keeping with the current theme, someone should inquire of the candidate what exactly she is proposing that would make lives better than what Sanders is proposing.
Such as, how does she plan to improve Obamacare? She never says. And since she’s now raised the issue, how does she plan to end racism? End sexism? End discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community? Make people more welcoming to immigrants?
Make immigrants feel more welcomed?
On that last one, she might be planning to ask Sam Brownback for suggestions. And sexism will end, I guess, because we will now have a woman president. So that takes care of two of the promises. But what about racism? How does she plan to end racism? And discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community?
She assures us that she is not making promises that she can’t keep. So let’s elect her and hold her to these.
Clinton’s campaign for months now has been an ever-churning series of canned talking-point-of-the-two-or-three-weeks attacks on Sanders. They’re mindless. And usually they raise questions about her own proposals, or (as this week’s does) lack thereof. As well as about her own veracity about Sanders’ proposals or something Sanders has said. This is a really unappealing campaign. I’m holding my breath waiting for the next canned tack-of-the-week-or-two-or-three.
Meanwhile, I’d like to see Sanders use that NYT editorial. And also ask some questions about how Clinton plans to end racism, sexism, discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community.
And ask a question or two about that welcoming-of-immigrants thing. Because if Clinton wins the nomination, Hispanic voters might write in Brownback’s name on their ballots in November.
“If we broke up the big banks tomorrow,” Mrs. Clinton asked the audience of black, white and Hispanic union members, “would that end racism?”
Now I’m getting concerned. This is exactly the rhetorical manipulation the repubs have used for decades and unfortunately there are too few people who will be voting to see that one has nothing to do with the other as to fixing either.
Well, maybe fixing the banks might effect the other a bit, but fixing the other does nothing for fixing our banks.
I forgot, my first thought was: Well isn’t this a bit of a whistle to the banks that says: Don’t worry, I got this one for you.
Hadn’t thought of that, Daniel, but, yeah. Good catch.
HRC selling logical fallacies.
I cannot stand the con artist.
“Leave the banks ALOOOONE!”