Letters to the Editor
chuck98765
Published Letters: 5
-
the follow-up counts too, alex
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]this whole posting on why the war room has ignored the geraldine ferraro comments (the answer: the flap has been overblown) ignores probably the most wretched part of the whole mess: sen. clinton's own personal response (and that of her campaign manager) to the flap. ignoring the fact that ferraro's comments could just as easily be directed at clinton herself (how many mediocre senators with unapologetically spotty records through their 1+ term in office, and both a derth of charisma and a ton of personal and professional baggage, could ever propose to be a presidential candidate - if that person was not married to a former president and a barrier breaker herself?), clinton has made a campaign out of taking umbridge to anything and everything thrown her way, playing the victim while simultaneously declaring she's the tough one who can take a licking and keep on ticking. she has demanded apologies and resignations from everyone from david geffen (boy does that seem a long time ago) to samantha powers, even going to far as to parse denunciation and rejection when it came to louis farrekan's endorsement of obama. yet, when one of her own surrogates (and one on her payroll, no less) throws a punch below the belt - less than a week after her complete overreaction to the powers comment - the best she can do is try to say, "this kind of thing has happened to both of us - remember?" honestly.
but the real slap in the face of all of us who did actually think ferraro was out of bounds (including olbermann, if you'd have watched his special comment) came after ferraro stuck to her guns and clinton's campaign responded. people say stupid thing sometimes - that happens. it's embarrassing, but you apologize when you realize that it didn't come out right. ferraro's ridiculous grandstanding ("they're coming after me because i'm white - how about that?") was not only indelicate, but false: "they" came after her because she was wrong. but then came the clinton campaign's moment to shine: obama, who had declared he wouldn't engage in personal shots, responded that he was disappointed that this was happening, and clinton's campaign somehow spun this into him breaking his word about personal attacks.
this nonsense from senator clinton toes the line between machiavelli and orwell - twisting language however seems useful to get in office - but most of all it smacks of a desperation for personal power that is willing to compromise everything liberalism stands for. you may not agree that this is important enough to discuss in salon's headline political blog (or that it should be downplayed when it is) but all that does is make me not want to read this blog anymore.
-
this was matthews' finest moment (& i mean that unironically)
[Read the article: Matthews rails against "Clinton-centric world" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]wait, what's wrong with this again?
i am NO chris matthews fan, by any stretch of the imagination. but he's dead right on this. i read the transcript then watched the video - i don't think there's a word misplaced. the clinton presidency DID turn into a sitcom, and the national fascination with bill/hilary's feelings of betrayal (or at least james carville's), because one of "their own" backed the other guy, is an embarrassing distraction (and seems a lot more akin to the current administration's "loyal bushy" mafioso-like attitude than they do about the actual future of the country).
bravo, chris. this might be the best thing you've ever said.
(as a sidenote: what gives, alex? your post the other week about geraldine ferraro, and how her wretched comments don't matter, was bad enough. the war room is starting to feel a little like a hilary blog.)