Letters to the Editor
loper2008
Published Letters: 29 Editor's Choice: 5
-
yeah, a little too heavy on emotion and light on evidence
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are a lot mischaracterizations here of the Obama camp positions: First of all, Obama did run a couple ads in Florida for which he got explicit DNC permission because they were on cable channels that broadcast nationally. Clinton had fundraisers in Florida where the media just happened to be there. So they are both equal on this one.
As for mail-in voting in Florida, that wasn't the best option because they had never done it before so it would have been totally untested. It is not hypocritical for Obama to support a plan that would implement mail-in voting over time yet not support a one-time-only system that would have to experiment with in Florida of all places. I used to work at the Elections Office in Texas and trust me, things take time to happen. This is the government and it takes awhile to establish a secure voting system.
I remember that Clinton threw out that she would not accept a caucus even though Michigan and Florida thought a caucus would be more feasible. So she turned down an option flat out because she did not feel a caucus would favor her. How is that for only supporting democracy when it supports her? Look, I honestly think we have a small chance of getting Florida no matter who the Dem nominee. Sure Clinton won the state but not by a huge margin, especially considering none of the other candidates campaigned in person there. McCain has the support of the governor who he may very well pick as VP. So I'm not fretting about FL. Michigan seems a lot less pissed about this and more willing to accept their role in this problem. I think Obama can win MI.
The Clinton campaign seems to be imploding right now and she will likely lose her core supporters of white working class men with the latest NAFTA, Colombia revelations in a general election, where Repubs would have negative ads against her. She has only done this well because Obama has not run a negative ad against her, ever. She will be destroyed in the general and marked as a liar and hypocrite. Her income taxes don't help any. A less than 2-millionaire like Obama is much different than a 110-millionaire, I don't care what anyone says.
Anyway, I could go on, but you know ... What's the point? The rules are the rules and Obama just played this one better. By far.
So the fact that we don't have a winner-take-all system seems very democratic to the core ... After all, the Repubs use winner-take-all and they ended up with McCain using that system and he wasn't vetted at all. Thanks, Repubs. We get to introduce his negatives to the voters on our terms.
-
I do still think Joan is wrong
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to claim that sexism has been worse than racism. First of all, as people have rightly pointed out, having a battle over who has it worst doesn't really do anyone any good. It is not a point from which empowerment begins by any stretch of the imagination. I think perhaps since Joan is a white woman (like me) she is more personally affected and aware of instances of sexism so you identify with that more than race and therefore see more instances occuring. But I think you are just igniting a generally unproductive debate.
Likewise, I don't think the criticism of Randi Rhoades is particularly productive either. For the people trying to claim she must hate herself to make such mean statements about another woman, I think is a huge stretch. She was trying to be funny and comedians exaggerate the truth and play the provocative role occasionally. This discourse in that setting is different than say, Rush Limbaugh, spewing this stuff in all seriousness to try and persuade ignorant people to his way of thinking.
What we choose to get worked up about in this country amazes me. We like the "gotcha" game of someone saying something wrong and then focusing on that instead of issues that are actually important. Sometimes a comedian telling a joke is just a comedian telling joke. You don't have to laugh or like it, but why work yourself into a frenzy? Same with the facebook group which was probably started as a joke and not some explicit indictment of women in political power. Again it isn't funny but it is not necessarily a crisis or indictment of American views on women.
I do find it interesting that Joan chooses to ignore probably the worst five days of HRC's campaign to post this rather self-serving and self-congratulatory post (if I'm being honest) which completely ignores her candidate's serious electability problems.
-
yes there is sexism
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and yes Hillary Clinton has displayed erratic behavior on this campaign trail which I believe would have been ridiculed if any Dem nominee had done so. (After all, the right wing controls cable news.)
Remember how Al Gore was feminized in his campaign? I think part of why she is not liked is that she does not seem comfortable in her own skin. In other words, she often acts like she doesn't know who she is and I think that is part of her problem.
Obama has been incredibly consistent and even though people criticize him it doesn't seem to take the toll on him that it takes on Clinton. Every week it seems like she has a different campaign. Think of her name changes in the 90's. I think HRC is fascinating ... I'm sure there will be many doctoral theses written about her, but one thing she is not is feminist icon.
I just watched a fascinating documentary about Shirley Chisolm's 1972 presidential run. As a Black women, she received the weak support of Gloria Steinem who called her a "good" candidate but McGovern "great." She faced sexism but it was an entirely different kind than HRC, and of course it was mixed with racism. Check it out and judge for yourself.