To Hillary from WV

Dear Hillary Clinton:

Since you like to bombard me with e-mail and recorded phone calls, I know you must be interested in me. After all, I'm a lower-middle-class (family income around $50K) white guy living in West Virginia... working a part-time teaching job (I got laid off a couple of years ago as a well-paid computer consultant to the IRS and folks in their sixties aren't readily re-hired in that field).

I live in Shepherdstown, where you visited on Tuesday. I didn't get close enough to see you (parking was a real drag and driving around looking for a spot on $3.71 per gallon gas was a real bummer), but I know you were really there talking to me.

I've been listening to your USA Today interview quote on TV yesterday and today... you know... where you distinguished between hard working white guys who you appealed to and Obama didn't. Frankly, I thought we had gotten beyond thinking about ourselves as black or white this year. I went to an Obama support meeting here in Jefferson County last month and there were members of several racial groups there... and many of us were white (I think we were all hard working, too, but I'm not sure about Asians or Hispanics or the African-Americans who were there... you'll have to let me  know.)

We get to do early voting in the WV Primary and I'm afraid to tell you that I already voted last weekend. And I voted for Obama.  Of course that was before you let me know how hard working white folks were supposed to vote.

So I guess what I want to say is "Sorry". And could you have your folks stop calling me and e-mailing me? I feel bad enough as it is.

- Blue Collar Bill

Under The LobsterScope

Tags: blue collar, middle class, voter, WHITE (all tags)




yet another diary trying to claim Hillary said anything remotely racist.  This is the single biggest reason I will not vote for Obama in november.  I will not reward this race baiting strategy.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-09 07:05AM | 0 recs
You are BSing again.

by kindthoughts 2008-05-09 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: You are BSing again.

No, we aren't. We don't think it's how Democrats behave.

by Little Otter 2008-05-09 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: snore

this is a rediculous reason not to vote for obama.

Hillary made a comment that offended some guy in WV who had already voted for Obama.

So you have reason not to vote for obama?

Why don't you ask hillary to stop making comments that offend voters? rather than respond by saying that you will not vote for Obama.

by poserM 2008-05-09 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: snore

I agree, this kind of tactics is really disgusting.

by peartree 2008-05-09 07:15AM | 0 recs
Is that REALLY the reason?


I believe, you would find another reason to not vote for Obama?

If not the "racism" it would be "sexism" or "The caucuses were unfair" or "He disenfranchised FI and MI" or "His Health Care Stance"..... or....or.....

It's not a matter of why, it's a matter of, Hillary Clinton will not be the first US woman President?

And, as I have seen in your diaries, that is PERSONAL for you.

And, you feel, Barack Obama has taken that from her AND from you?

For you, for Little Otter, for LinFar, For SusanHu, that is all the reason that is needed.

I DO hope you just sit it out, because, 10 years from now, IF you vote for McCain and he wins, and Roe V Wade falls, because he replaces Ginsburg and Stevens with Alito Round 2, I hope you can forgive yourself.

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-09 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

 Please explain how Roe v Wade will be overturned ,since the ruling was about privacy and not abortion. Privacy if I`m not mistaken is covered in the constitution and since Alito et al like to follow the strict interpretation they will not overturn.
by gunner 2008-05-09 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

You're kidding?

Alito and Roberts will BOTH vote to overturn Roe?

They BOTH are on record, there is no consitutional right to privacy?

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-09 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

Try some research once the KOOL-AID wears off

.Harry Blackmun wrote the Court's opinion.
Harry Blackmun wrote the Court's opinion.

The court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7 to 2 majority voting to strike down Texas abortion laws. Burger and Douglas' concurring opinion and White's dissenting opinion were issued separately, in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.

The Roe Court deemed abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution, thereby subjecting all laws attempting to restrict it to the standard of strict scrutiny. Although abortion is still considered a fundamental right, subsequent cases, notably Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Stenberg v. Carhart, and Gonzales v. Carhart have affected the legal standard.

The opinion of the Roe Court, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." Douglas, in his concurring opinion from the companion case Doe v. Bolton, stated more emphatically that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." Thus, the Roe majority rested its opinion squarely on the Constitution's due process clause.

by gunner 2008-05-09 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?


Harry Blackmun is dead.

BTW, I go to the USSC quite often, my best bud is the webmaster for the OYEZ project? Ever hear of that? You will, if you know anything about the USSC?

How often YOU been to the Court?

Try sleeping on the sidewalk in Febuary to get into the Ten Commandment cases as I did, before you tell me about the Kool-Aid?

And, AGAIN, ALito and Roberts don't believe in a constitutional right to privacy?

That also have shown that their BS in their appointment hearings that the believe in Stare Decisis is a big fat lie?

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-09 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

The Roe majority rested its opinion squarely on the Constitution's due process clause. They WILL follow the constitution which includes the due process law.To do different means they are not strict constructionist judges.
by gunner 2008-05-09 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

Well, I see there is no reason to discuss this with you, but I encourage you to read Scalia's book?

He thinks Roe V Wade was a wrong decision, and he WILL vote to overturn it.

So will Thomas?

Again, THEY DON'T RECOGNIZE any fundemental right to privacy in the Constitution?

So, you can THINK they agree with Blackmun, but THEY ARE ON RECORD that they don't.

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-09 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

The due process clause is covered in the constitution and this is what the ruling was based on. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, the Court had previously found support for various privacy rights in several provisions of the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as in the "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights. But instead of relying upon the Bill of Rights or "penumbras, formed by emanations", as the Court had done in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Roe Court relied on a "right of privacy" that it said was located in the due process clause of the Constitution.

I will discuss it all day with you if you want.

by gunner 2008-05-09 09:21AM | 0 recs
Are you really that dense?

We know what the constitution says.  We've read the opinion; we agree with it.  That's one of the reasons were Democrats.  But Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas don't understand the constitution.  They don't see a right to privacy in the document.  They don't believe that the due process argument is persuasive.  Thus, they are the record saying they overturn Roe v. Wade.  If you don't believe us read the most recent abortion court opinion, Alito writes an opinion saying so.

Do you think these people were kidding for the past twenty years when they said that they would appoint judges that would overturn Roe?  Those judges are on the Court now.  And the sad fact is that what the Court says is Law.  If they get one more conservative judge, they will overturn Roe.  It's G-d damned guarranteed.  I'm willing to bet on that.  I'm willing to bet a million dollars and have like $10 in my checking account.  I'm willing to give you my name, address, and social security number to confirm the bet, b/c I'd like a million dollars.  If we elect John McCain, Roe is gone.  It's only a question of when.

by nklein 2008-05-09 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

Alito DISSENTED on Casey!  At a lower court HE DISSENTED on Casey, which is what has sustained the right to choose.

You are absolutely and totally out of your flipping mind if you think the judges that the Republicans just nominated (who are honorable and intelligent men) or the ones that they would under McCain, YOU ARE NUTS if you think they wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade.

I've read Roe.  I've read Casey.  Have you?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-09 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

 In order to over turn Roe v Wade they would have to amend the constitution, no matter what they say.This is not an easy task.
 Amending the Constitution is a two-part process: amendments must be proposed and then they must be ratified. Amendments can be proposed one of two ways. The only way that has been used to date is through a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress. Alternatively, two-thirds of the legislatures of the States can call a Constitutional Convention to consider one or more amendments. This second method has never been used, and it is unclear exactly how, in practice, such a Constitutional Convention would work.

Regardless of how the amendment is proposed, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states, a process called ratification. Depending on the amendment, this requires either the state legislatures or special state conventions to approve the amendment by simple majority vote. Amendments generally go to state legislatures to be ratified, only the Twenty-first Amendment called for special state conventions.

Unlike many other constitutions, amendments to the U.S. constitution are appended to the existing body of the text without altering or removing what already exists. There is no provision for deleting either obsolete text or rescinded provisions.

by gunner 2008-05-09 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

Do you have a legal background?  I do.  I'm most of the way through law school.  Let me explain this, though I wish to be clear I am not acting as a lawyer, and I do not wish the following to be taken as such:

Stare Decisis simply requires deference to prior decisions because people have relied on them and they become a big part of how we understand the law and what it means.  Stare Decisis is important, even to Justices Roberts and Alito.  I take them at their word when they say they will afford Roe v. Wade some deference.

All that being said, THEY ARE NOT BOUND TO UPHOLD IT!  If they reason that Roe v. Wade was sufficiently erroneous they are perfectly free, if they can whip up five votes, to overturn it, to restrict it, or whatever else they like.

A Constitutional amendment is incredibly hard to get passed, you are correct.  However, they absolutely DO NOT NEED ONE.

Four justices right now would almost CERTAINLY vote to overturn it - Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas.  Kennedy is a bit of a wild card, and I don't think he would.  However, Justice Stevens is 85 or so at this point.  He cannot be expected to make it to 2013.  If he dies/retires, we will NOT be assured that Roe v. Wade stands.

You are entitled to your own views, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts.  Roe v. Wade is not a part of the Constitution.  Casey v. Planned Parenthood has ALREADY modified that decision greatly, and most of what people think Roe did were actually part of Casey.

Caselaw can change.  You are absolutely incorrect in asserting that they need an amendment.  This isn't an Obama or Clinton thing.  This isn't a messageboard thing.  This is REAL LIFE.  Dred Scot was overturned.  Many major cases have been.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-09 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

Whether they would over turn or not becomes a mute point. I agree, during the next 4 years 2, maybe 3 chairs will have to filled. I also think you will agree that if Mccain appointed any Alito types, they would not pass the smell test under a Democratic senate.

by gunner 2008-05-09 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

The word is "moot" first of all.

And no, I don't agree.  The trick that the Republicans have learned is to find the youngest judge they can, which is of two benefits.  First, he's young.  He'll be on the bench for decades.  Second, the younger he is the less paper trail there is.  Fewer opinions and so forth.

All they have to say is "I respect stare decisis and I'll give Roe appropriate deference" and they'll get through just fine.

That's EXACTLY what Roberts did.  He's a stand-up guy, incredibly qualified and talented, and a good justice.  However, if what you want is for a federal right to choose whether or not you bring your child to term, he's not your guy.

Also, if you want meaningful oversight of the executive on torture issues and so forth.

The President picks his nominees.  He may not get the worst guy/gal through, but he'll get roughly what he wants.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-05-09 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Is that REALLY the reason?

Obama wanted to vote for John Roberts until an aide pointed out that it would be bad for his presidential ambitions if he did. Combine that with Obama's voting present on abortion care bills, his lies about why did it and I don't think he's going to appoint judges which will uphold Roe.

There are a lot of reasons to sit the presidential race out of Obama is the nominee - the sexism, the race baiting, the lack of a solid pro-choice stance, the lack of experience, the dirty politics, his wife joking about scratching Clinton's eye out - this is not how Democratic presidential candidates behave. I don't want this strain affecting the party after this election.

by Little Otter 2008-05-09 08:07AM | 0 recs
So to teach the party a lesson...

you're going to help elect John McCain (whether you vote for him or not, as long as you don't vote for the Dem nominee).  How does that help anything?  It doesn't teach the party a lesson.  First, I don't think a lesson is necessary (I think there have been some awful things done on both sides).  Second, you're sitting out is not going to teach the party a lesson, it will only lead to another four years of national destruction and push the party further toward whatever negative direction you think it is going.  If you want to teach the party a lesson, stay.  Participate.  And show through both example and a discussion of their perceived wrongs how a Democrat acts.

And we know you don't do anything positive for the country the country if you abandon the Dem. nominee.  You doom us to another four years of war, depression and environmental disaster.  This is not blackmail I'm employing, these are facts.  

Thus I ask what do you think you would accomplish through your described action?  Nothing good from my perspective.

by nklein 2008-05-09 10:22AM | 0 recs
Well, theresa

I gave you a shout out - but I will vote for him in Fall ( should he be nominee which is likely).

Very few on these blogs want to have a real racial talk - it's too painful.  and I don't like the rules handed out.  but still Theresa, he's way better than Mc Cain.

by Xanthe 2008-05-09 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: To Hillary from WV

Hi Bill,

Listen, it's clear, you are a latte-drinking, volvo driving Elite, so give up this "hard working white folks" sham you are trying to pull?

Please, come join us out in WA state?

We spend a lot of time on the verenda (except when it rains, which is about 85% of the time) sipping Pinot Noir, talking about subtitled movies and Neo-Colonial Architecture?

We never have to work, at least not hard, and we don't need a President (Bill told us so?)

And, it's been amazing: All these incredible transformation happened AFTER we voted for Obama about 2-1?

by WashStateBlue 2008-05-09 07:06AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads