Letters to the Editor
burlydee
Published Letters: 283 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Trying not to post
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But... Joan Walsh really conflates two points. And that is her tried and true method. The amount of sexism Hillary faces and the rejection of Randi Rhodes' comments are totally different subjects. I can reject what Randi Rhodes, comedian, said and still not believe Hillary has been treated unfairly in this election.
I also think it is interesting that Joan NEVER addressed Geraldine Ferraro's comments. They were also basically ignored in the War Room. From that moment on, I really lost all respect for Salon. Salon covers and recovers every sexist slight, but a Clinton surrogates racism, hardly a peep. Because the words of a comedian versus the words of a former Democratic VP nominee aren't even close to having the same relevance. Joan, to my knowledge, has still never commented on that fiasco. Of course, she wrote about six posts about Rev. Wright... whatever.
I also don't understand the need to compare sexism and racism. I think one point people are missing is by comparing the two, Joan is implying that liberals are voting for Obama because they feel guilty about racism. When, according to Joan, they should feel guilty about sexism. And the fact that Obama supporters don't feel guilty about sexism is somehow proof they themselves are sexist. For a lot of posters here, the fact that I'm not outraged by Rhodes' comments (and I think Rhodes was way out of line) is proof that I'm some sort of sexist. It is really disturbing, and it is really disturbing to hear Joan write like this. The truth is black leaders are called niggers everyday... by black comedians. Colin Powell and Condi Rice have been challenged in countless ways for not being black enough. Obama, at the beginning of the campaign, was also challenged for not being black enough. Whether Joan realizes it or not, this too is a subtle form of racism. Especially when you consider that most people asking the question were white.
Personally, I have taken Joan's advice and stop reading Salon - outside of Greenwald. Salon hasn't had an article based on policy in months. Just petty gossip and victimization screeds back and forth.
-
@ Joan
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]have fun attacking the straw men. Did you not see a Hillary supporter refer to Randi Rhodes as a C*nt? But anyway, please answer a few of questions -
Why do you always talk about the difficulties Hillary faces but never write about the inherent advantages she has? DLC, First Lady, name recognition, etc.
Why do you feel the need to constantly compare racism to sexism? What are you seeking to demonstrate, prove etc.? I think we can agree that sexism is prevalent in the campaign, but what does that mean? What does it show? Are you claiming that without sexism Hillary would be winning? Your constant writing on this issue reminds me of some of the clients I have - they are always accusing the police of racism. Which, in my area, probably has some truth. But of course, no one forces any of my clients to break laws. So the police may be racists, but it doesn't really change anything.
And, why have you ignored when black politicians, Obama-Powell-Rice, are criticized using racist language or framing? i.e. - Obama isn't black enough. Colin Powell is a house nigger, etc. These attacks are leveled in comedic form, by people like Chris Rock and Dave Chapelle all the time, or earnestly by the likes of Ferraro. So what is so special about the Randi Rhodes instance as opposed to others?
-
@ mIservance
[Read the article: Examining the reaction to Clinton's hospital story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hear what you are saying, BUT, what if people on this board actually believe Hillary is only out for herself or doesn't have a core set of principles from which she will govern - do they not have a right to voice their opinions? Instead of lamenting that people on liberal blogs are using right-wing talking points, you should address their criticisms directly. "HRC believes..." "HRC stands for..." or "Obama believes..." "Obama stands for..."
I think that would be a more effective way to deal with such people.
-
Wow! Rick Santourum
[Read the article: "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" kicks off]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is an idiot. Good to know that Christianity is only practiced one day a week. I guess I was wrong for calling all those Bible-thumping, rich, war-mongers hypocrites - Only sins on Sunday's count.