If you need a clearer example of how the Clintons are opportunist scumbags that will use race to get elected in one breath and throw minorities under the bus if they don’t agree with their horrific world views.
Hillary Clinton helped deal another blow to vulnerable Rep. Jamaal Bowman on Wednesday
Did she? Is a Hillary Clinton endorsement valuable? Or even positive? Every time she shows up in the news to talk about politics it feels like she’s doing more harm than good.
Good for a dem primary, literal cancer for a general. That said I think this is safe district.
What’s really gonna sink Bowman in this primary is all that AIPAC money.
I think this is mostly evidence of Clinton preferring George Latimer. Endorsing someone is just saying that you like them for the job. I’m sure Bowman has endorsements, too.
…or is the point that Rep Bowman should be immune from primary challenges because he’s black?
Bowman is the guy who got censured by the House for that dumb fire alarm incident. Now he’s calling Latimer racist, and for what reason? Latimer seems like a very boring politician, not a klansman.
When Latimer said Bowman is an “ineffective Congressman” because he argues too much, Bowman interrupted to say that he is “passionate.”
But Latimer responded, “You need to talk to them as normal people — you can’t preach and scream at them on the steps of the Capitol.”
Jamaal Bowman is known as one of the more firebrand politicians out there. Running against that is fair game, and pretending fair criticism of him is racism seems dishonest as fuck to me.
If that was the first questionable race-related comment he made I’d be inclined to believe it’s no big deal, but it’s not.
Here’s one of the controversies, a donor made an explicitly racist statement on camera, and the candidate never disavowed it (at least by two weeks later when the second article was written).
https://x.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1791533603433648188
And there are certainly stereotypes you just need to be careful about implying when pursuing a Democratic nomination. If your opponent is greedy and happens to be Jewish, spend some extra time thinking about how it’s going to be heard by people who have been working under that stereotype their whole life. That line of attack could have been framed as uninterested in reaching across the aisle or smooth talking other representatives, but he chose “argues too much” and “scream at”, then said he should talk “like normal people”. He’s not lighting up crosses, but he probably would have “voted for Obama a third time”.
Like this isn’t just a random off-hand comment where he didn’t have time to think and said something inartfully, this was a core line of attack on the first black representative of the district, something he must have realized would resonate with bigoted voters. And Bowman isn’t a particularly angry representative. Like “more firebrand” is true, but not in a sense where you’d think he’s really out of line. Making statements of principles on the steps of the capitol is something politicians do, especially when they’re in the minority.
Why is he responsible for the statements of some random donor? I don’t know why he would need to address those comments, it seems like some activists ambushed some random person on the street and she said something which wasn’t focus grouped and sounded bad. If she runs for office I guess she should address them.
but he chose “argues too much” and “scream at”, then said he should talk “like normal people”.
This is a common argument against progressives from moderates, of whatever race or gender or religion. You can not like that argument, but the fact that it’s used commonly against the populist left kinda detracts from the “oh, this is a dog whistle”
The same reason Republicans should be disavowing the Nazis that support them. Because they’ve been publicly identified as being associated with his campaign. That wasn’t “not focused grouped”, that was racist. “The black congressman is only interested in his people.”
This is a common argument against progressives from moderates, of whatever race or gender or religion. You can not like that argument, but the fact that it’s used commonly against the populist left kinda detracts from the “oh, this is a dog whistle”
I literally just explained why this was a problem, and it’s not a matter of whether you can ever attack a black politician for not doing low key deal making. Take a half second to consider the larger cultural context for how you’re framing the attack and you wouldn’t have a problem.
But I am once again shocked at how empty the social justice ethics of moderates are.
This woman doesn’t seem like a Nazi lol
I literally just explained why this was a problem,
And I disagree. You haven’t actually shown me any evidence that he’s a racist. The best you’ve done is show me a statement by some random donor (???) who made a statement when ambushed by combative activists that was awkward. Whoop de fucking doo
Oh, I’m sorry she’s just racist rather than actually ready for pogroms, guess it’s no big deal then. And to double down in describing very blatant racism as an “awkward statement” is… wow.