Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
thanks, Carol
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suspected you were being satirical but you did it so well, I wasn't sure! :)
I do think this of all Joan's pieces of late is quite strong. Balanced and incisive.
There are some people here who seem willing to lay bare their decision-making process, which is nice, but you're right, it's more the exception.
-
@ libertyson
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She wants to be president and she's convinced that, to do that, she needs to show people that her balls are even bigger than McCain's.
Rather than seeking to use her platform to allay the fears of an infantilized populace, she's pandering to them.
She is what she is and she's right, people love chants of "U-S-A! U-S-A!"
She doesn't get, though, that whatever she says, she'll never win the big dick contest against McCain if she should somehow manage to secure the nomination.
I don't know.
I'm through dealing with her. People like her and that's their prerogative. What can you do?
-
@ dog-walker
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Carol's satirizing the implicit and explicit criticism of a lot of Clinton supporters that Obama is not who he seems to be.
A recurrent criticism is that, for all his talk of elevating the debate, staying out of the mud, new politics, etc., he's really just as old-school politician as anyone else.
They distrust him because they believe his claims and or efforts to rise above are just cynical manipulation.
They point to evidence such as his unspeakable hauteur in refusing to answer questions by hiding behind waffles.
(Heh heh, get it, waffles?)
Obama has incurred a lot of resentment for having the audacity to suggest that the US deserves better than Clintonian/Washingtonian politics.
I think it's typical, though, idealists are often treated thus.
Idealists hit lots of nerves, unwittingly, for daring to uphold some kind of moral standard.
Naderites, for example, were subject to the same kind of animosity and the same kind of critiques in 2000, as were Dean people in 2004. God help you if you even aspire to some kind of purity; the slightest deviation is going to damn you as a false hypocrite.
Better to just be unabashed down and dirty, people feel that's more honest, I guess.
I think this is what's going on and it's a typical dynamic when realism and idealism collide.
-
@ Fester
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well said, all around, Fester.
Especially this: "It's worth repeating that Iran has a very young population that doesn't remember life under the US sponsored Shah and they want the mullahs out of power. But the easiest way to unite a fractious people is to present an external threat. It worked here, it works over there."
This is so fucking critical. The best way to incorporate Iran into "the world community" is certainly not by threatening them.
Really, how do these words sound to the ordinary people of Iran? Because these are the people capable of making political decisions and exerting pressure over their government as to how militarist it's to be.
Wouldn't you want to send a message to these people that the US has zero interest in blowing them up? Would that not help to discredit their administration's own bellicose posturing?
-
@ rebeccawriter
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]May I ask you a serious question? Not meant to provoke, but to interact: why does not her hawkishness disturb you? Why is it ok that she voted for the war?
-
@ KateTex
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, fair enough.
First of all, though, please don't take my words out of context. If I recall correctly, I was referring to the US populace in general as infantalized, wasn't I?
And in particular, I was referring to its susceptibility to fearmongering.
I take that very seriously because this war we're involved in, along with the creation of this "imperial presidency" have been possible because the American people made a decision to be afraid, be very afraid of the terrorists.
This is my analysis.
Do you dispute it?
Is there a less condescending way I might express it?
Now, as to treating Hillary Clinton herself with more respect, frankly, I don't believe she's entitled to that.
Respect must be earned and she's done much, much to lose my respect over this decade plus that I've paid attention to her.
I respect her as a human being, sure, I wish her no ill, but beyond that, I don't believe she respects me, so why is it incumbent upon me to respect her in her capacity as presidential candidate?
But you hit on this point about my condescension, which I suppose is a fair point: I do tend towards condescension, although I don't believe it's gratuitous.
I've grown up in this country and I've seen a lot to make me believe that the American electorate is kind of, well, ignorant.
What can I say?
-
@ Kate
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And btw, Kate, while my attitude may be condescending towards "the electorate" in general, it's most decidedly not in the case of individuals.
I don't know if you've noticed, but I ask a lot of direct questions of Clinton supporters (either specific supporters or supporters in general) because I'm trying to resist my own tendency to generalize.
But people rarely respond.
I really would rather connect with individuals than draw caricatures, but it's hard because people aren't always willing to converse.
One of my questions of Clinton supporters, for instance, is why are they willing to absolve her of the war vote?
To me, this is a HUGE issue and when I see all these people cheering her on, it's hard for me not to see them as enabling Democratic complicity with the Bush war.
I really, honestly don't understand why that's not deeply troubling to her supporters.
Was the war just never an issue for Clinton supporters, have they (you) given her a pass, or do you actually agree with her vote?
Seriously, I'm asking you, Kate, as a real person, why is this not more problematic?