Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ Deeper Truth
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Again, though, you throw around the word "racist" in a way that I think obscures and hampers understanding more than it elucidates.
With all due respect, please consider what you mean by the word and be sensitive to the fact that it's so freighted by this point as to be of limited productivity.
If you're really serious about having a productive interaction (and I suspect that you are), please, please, please reflect on this.
-
@rbl
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Odog is the blank slate on which the national conversation is written.
Nice phrase. Something like Bertolucci's "Conformist," perhaps.
-
@ xh
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well done. You might add that if we're going to invoke "Bush-like loyalty," an apt comparison would seem to be Carville's denunciation of Richardson as a "Judas" for his craven betrayal of the Clintons.
Seriously, that's some scary stuff and I think it's fair to say it's reflective of the ethos of the Clinton team. You might argue that that's all right, or even desirable, but I think a neutral observer would see a clear parallel between such an ethos and that of the Bush administration.
-
@Lobelia
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Beautiful.
-
cronyism
[Read the article: Matthews rails against "Clinton-centric world" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The reason Carville's comment matters is not because of the "tone" it represents or because it was mean of him to call poor Bill Richardson a "Judas."
The reason it matters is because it suggests an ethos which is deeply, deeply consequential. Namely, it suggests the sort of die-hard loyalism and cronyism we've seen from the Bush administration.
But moreover, Clinton herself has campaigned against cronyism and cited it as the cause of many of Bush's failures.
The question, then, isn't about whether James Carville is a meany, but whether is orientation is reflective of the way Hillary Clinton does or will do business.
Now, regardless of whether we support or oppose Hillary, this should be the question we're asking, provided we're intellectually honest.
The rest of it is so much noise.
-
loyalty
[Read the article: Matthews rails against "Clinton-centric world" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On a related note, I think this issue of loyalty runs deeper than just the Clinton insiders.
Regarding accusations or suggestions that there's a racist undercurrent in the Clinton campaign, many of her defenders around the blogs have invoked "all the Clintons have done for black people" as both evidence that there cannot be a racist undercurrent to the campaign as well as as a sort of rebuke of black Americans for disloyalty.
This is an observation, not an accusation, so please receive it as such.
It does seem, though, that perhaps Clinton attracts the sort of people who really do value loyalty more highly than those that Obama attracts.
Does this ring true to anyone else?
-
Am I the only one...
[Read the article: "It is possible ... that she misspoke"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...who thinks this is a case of burying the lead?
The real story is what running for cover has to do with international experience.
No one seems to be asking this question.
Let's grant Clinton her hail of bullets, for argument's sake.
What bearing does that have on answering the 3am phone call?
Isn't that the real question?
-
@ madamfountleroy
[Read the article: "It is possible ... that she misspoke"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Exactly!
So shouldn't our attention be focussed on dismissing that preposterous narrative out of hand, or at least challenging Clinton to explain to us how, precisely, she connects such heroism to judicious foreign policy decisions?
Why, in other words, do we (or more importantly, the professional media) for one second concede such a non-sequitur of a premise?
In this case, we don't need to waste our time uncovering this lie because the premise the lie is designed to support is dubious at best.
Same thing with the Carville business. The real story there isn't about "nastiness" or whether Bill Richardson is a "traitor," but rather about the very premise that Richardson's loyalty is owed to Clinton.
In both these cases, the legitimate issues are ignored for yet another round of "I know you are, but what am I!" and "Clinton's an asshole!"
"Obama's a liar!"
"Oh yeah, well Clinton did this!"
"Yeah, well Obama did that!"
I mean Christ Jesus, if we can't have a serious and substantive discussion about these things at Salon, then just where is such a discussion supposed to occur?
What's the point in abstaining from Fox News and Talk Radio only to bring Fox News and Talk Radio here?
Really, I just don't get it.
-
an extremely banal set of observations...
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...brilliantly rendered.
Bravo, Mr. Kamiya, for saying, yet again, that which really should be beyond elementary by this point.
You write the truth and for that no doubt will likewise be pilloried, but that's the country we live in. A country of fat, self-absorbed infants posturing as adults.
(Wow, that's very bitter of me, I know, and I'm not proud of that bitterness, but man, it's so hard to rise above.)
One quibble, though. You write that patriotism has become more of an opiate than religion. I'd probably argue that in fact, patriotism is religion, for what it's worth.
Anyway, thanks for writing so eloquently and saliently about something we should by now be light years beyond.
-
@ Kevin Cooley
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's kind of a non-sequitur, isn't it?
What does "winning at the poles" have to do with this essay?
Is the author's goal in writing this essay to deliver some kind of electoral victory?
I mean no disrespect, but I don't understand the nature of the question.
-
@ Kevin Cooley
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And moreover, what does winning elections avail us if it comes at the cost of keeping silent about what is right or correct or, worse still, losing one's sense that there is such a thing?
Or perhaps I misunderstand you.
Would you mind elaborating?
-
@ blkfmlfortyplus
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you!
I almost mentioned that myself, but didn't feel comfortable doing so because I'm not knowledgeable enough on the basics.
I appreciate that you did.