Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ tbrandel: Another Shot Across the Bow
[Read the article: It ain't over yet]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't believe the animosity and hatred directed at ProudTexasGirl, Clinton supporters, and Hillary Clinton.
What drives you to such extremes? Many of us are trying to hold sane, informative and thoughtful debates and discussions on these issues and the candidates, without debasing and denigrating candidates or their supporters.
I just finished posting, not one hour ago, the need to end this mudslinging, name-calling, playing fast and loose with "facts", and for some civility and sanity, and once again it is an Obama follower who seems not to care what others at Salon think or say -- as though you are somehow above or beyond such banal niceties and requests.
Please! It is fine to disagree with a person's support of a candidate; it is fine to disagree with something that a candidate does or does not do. But you do not need to shovel that at a Clinton supporter; and you do not need to use right-wing Republican tactics and talking points to argue!
-
@ Kingbreaker: Wrong About Obama
[Read the article: It's 3 a.m. Who do you want answering the phone?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sen. Obama DOES NOT SERVE on the Senate Armed Services Committee -- Sen. Clinton does.
Obama serves on the Foreign Relations Committee and chairs the subcommittee on NATO and Europe. And by the way, he has been too busy campaigning to hold any oversight hearings on the issues he claims to be very concerned about.
-
@ Kingbreaker: Oops!
[Read the article: It's 3 a.m. Who do you want answering the phone?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow! Sorry about that last post. I missed the "McCain" part and somehow read "Obama...serves on the Armed Services Committee.
Apologies! :
-
And You Thought Hillary's Supporters Were Angry!
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perusing the "anti-Hillary" comments in this thread is amusing. Hillary's supporters are told (often) that we are angry women, out for revenge against men, or the world, or whoever and whatever else. And, according to Maureen Dowd, we also don't have any fun.
But to read the posts here, the anger is palpable among Obama's followers -- especially the women! And, wow, does it ever get dished out and served piping hot at Hillary and Hillary supporters.
Got irony?
-
@ Greeneyedkzin
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As a strong Second Wave feminist who voted for Hillary, I wanted to thank the person who spoke out for that generation of us who earned graduate degrees and professional positions back in the day. Personally, I think we have a lot more to contribute, including the fact of the impact that this experience still has.
I see that Obama supporters have targeted this board and are earnestly pleading their cause. As someone who's been called shrill and strident back in the day and whose clothes have been examined in even more detail than her ideas, I have to tell you that the lines some of you are taking (LittleLordBaltimore being an ADMIRABLE exception) are not going to win any converts. Name-calling rarely does; reiteration and mobbing only get people's backs up.
Thanks for speaking up! I can't believe we have to put up with not only sexism, but ageism! The two seem to be a potent combination among MANY Obama followers. I'm a "tweener" - first-wave and second-wave feminist, but closer to a first-wave. Life has improved, but ONLY because of our older sisters who went before and opened up the doors, or smashed the damned locks off, if that's what it took. And Hillary Clinton is one of those women. I believe she IS the most qualified and capable to lead this country and I am PROUD to support her in every way I can to win the nomination and the White House.
Maureen Dowd be damned. She doesn't strike me as particularly happy or fulfilled. And neither do many women in Obama's camp (at least if the posts I read are any indication).
And, thanks for calling out the name-callers. I've done it -- and continue to -- in other threads on Salon. That tactic certainly doesn't do anything to convince me...
Keep posting!
-
@ Pesky details: Why Bother?
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You've already made up your mind, as evidenced by your angry outburst here.
However, since you insist on accusing Sen. Clinton, without any context and without, apparently, any understanding of what the "resolution" says, here are two links.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:5:./temp/~c107yJYQMi
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783
I sincerely wish you and others who so despise Hillary Clinton -- based on media hype, innuendo, rumor, disinformation and outright lies -- would do a little more research before judging so hastily and with such venom.
-
@ TomDavidson: All This And Free Psychoanalysis
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So I have come to believe that Hillary supporters endorse her run at the presidency precisely because they're aware of this latter tendency. They know people hate her, and that's precisely what they want to provoke; they want the controversy, the constant brinksmanship, the opportunity to triumph or to be victimized...
And you know all of this precisely because...you're a psychologist or psychiatrist?
Here are a couple of suggestions: stop putting "us" into the position of victims/castrating b******; try to contain your condescension and patronism. You might not acknowledge it, but we are actually thoughtful, highly educated and informed. I don't know about you...
I resent your weak attempt at pop psychology and your very narrow dichotomies.