Sean Wilentz: Response to Orlando Patterson's essays on the Clinton campaign's use of raceRoundup: Historians' Take
Orlando Patterson's reply is as unpersuasive as his original op-ed essay. His op-ed--a fanciful interpretation of Hillary Clinton's 3 A.M. campaign ad as racist--provides no facts to back up its assertions, thereby making refutation literally impossible. Now, in his reply, Patterson offers more groundless speculation. He also fails to concede that his original essay contained a gross falsehood that is now a matter of record--a falsehood that, once revealed, demolishes his basic argument. And his account of my writing about Obama's charges of racism creates a straw man that has absolutely nothing to do with what I have actually written.
Patterson evades the real subject of
Patterson takes as gospel the Obama campaign's allegations
about Bill Clinton's supposed race-baiting during the
Patterson goes on to state flatly, without a shred of
evidence, that most older, less educated white Democratic voters of
In his op-ed and his reply, Patterson's entire argument
rests on his assertion that the
comments powered by Disqus
Heinrich Schitten - 3/18/2008
Wilentz needs to show the fundamental intellectual honesty expected of our profession and disclose his longtime personal support of the Clintons when he writes an attack on Obama.
- Craig Shirley says Ted Cruz is right and the Huffington Post wrong about Ronald Reagan’s 1980 Presidential Campaign
- Mystery at Notre Dame: A priest-historian has been forced to back off a project promoting authentic Catholic education
- William & Mary launching a gay history project
- "I teach the largest gay and lesbian history class in the country."
- Another year of declines in history enrollments