Letters to the Editor
Carol Richards
Published Letters: 420
-
NARAL, deloresflower and McCain's speech
[Read the article: Mississippi turning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does anybody here think it sort of shows a weakness in Obama that he has not rejected the endorsement of NARAL? I imagine this is another issue that might mean something is wrong with Obama. Wouldn't it be a more gracious gesture if he told them that they should stay with Hillary? I worry that we won't figure out what his refusal to renounce
NARAL's endorsement actually means about him.
Deloresflower, I just wanted to support your comments about race/gender and say that I wish you could be the person to do the writing of which you speak; but you may not qualify. Like you, I am going to try and hunker down at work today and resist the temptation to come to Salon and count the ways the democrats can cut up and divide themselves. I've got this hunch that NARAL could come in handy in this regard.
I think McCain was smart to make that kind of speech on this kind of day. What an opportunity this guy has to get the attention of those folks who are sick of the Clinton/Obama wars. It's exactly those who are open to the idea of maybe voting for McCain will determine this election.
Even though I still feel certain that Hillary will make a gracious exit on June 6th, the thought of her making the party stronger through June creeps me out. It seems like McCain understands the opportunity; not to mention his ability to take advantage of the media's (as a collection of power) tendencies.
-
McCain as dreamer? No way, right?
[Read the article: Mississippi turning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wonder if McCain's dreamy speech will at all affect the way he is painted in the press. I wonder if they will scratch their heads and wonder outloud about his tendency to live in a land of mere ideas?
I think it is probably better if they just stick to Obama-the-misty-eyed-dreamer and McCain-the-independent-pragmatist.
And do you REALLY think that Hillary feels more safe with Obama as president than McCain. Why would she in terms of what she has told us about both of them so far?
-
Joan, what am I trying to say?
[Read the article: Will gay marriage doom the Democrats?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure why I find your mentioning of those 4 years your daughter was in high school so moving! Perhaps because those are such pivotal years, filled with all the confusion and "clarity" a young adult can stand. And there is something powerful in thinking how, for your daughter, those years were marked by the "failure" of one election and the mystery of the next.
This is an example of what I like about Joan; in imagining that California's ruling does indeed lose the election for Obama, she is able to unflinchingly say "so be it". She keeps things in perspective and doesn't get lost in the political mummery that blames such and such for this and that. She keeps her eyes on what really matters: equality for all!
And I bet Joan would not even get all that caught up if we learned that some shady characters and some not-so-above-board practices somehow played roles in getting this ball rolling in California. That has to be just accepted. The fact is that an important step forward was taken and Joan is ready to exclaim it and join the momentum of that movement.
I just wish she could apply some of that capacity to how she views Obama. You know, to step back and let his human flaws and weaknesses fall into a wider scope of the direction he can help move this country. I wish instead of getting so bogged down on each and every thing he could do better, he should do better, he might maybe do better...each and every thing that might make him worse than Hillary or not as practiced as McCain...I'd like to see Joan shift, just a bit, in the direction of seeing Obama in the wider political/cultural context. If Hillary had won and Joan spent the general election isolating her weaknesses and how she might lose and wondering about her personality snags, I'd say the same thing. But it might take me a couple more weeks to overload on that.
That involves really looking at the kind of world he wants. This does NOT mean idealizing him or believing that he will create a utopia. But in the same way that California literally took a step forward that might not be perfect but is on the right path, I don't see why Obama isn't the same type of step. I don't see why Joan's analysis can't shift away from the pure strategy questions and moral-magnifying glass questions (that Obama looks like a snob to her) towards a frame that is more like this ruling in California? This doesn't mean she gives him a free ride at all. It simply means looking at him in the context of what this election represents.
Joan's daughter will now take her next steps. These steps might be coincident with Obama's first days in office as president. He will make missteps, certainly, as will mini-Joan and all of us. But I don't think Joan should write blazing (so wonderful) articles like the one above if she is simply going to creep back down the hill and let us know exactly what's wrong and should be better about Obama. That doesn't mean it wouldn't have been wonderful if Obama had realeased an unexpectedly beaming press statement about California's ruling. That would have been wondeful (but perhaps not super wise)...But can't we happily "so be it" that Obama and Clinton aren't in simple positions in respects to such articulations? Or must we lose sight of what they are trying to do in their capacity?
I can tell I'm not saying any of this well because it does read as if I simply want her to cheer him on unthinkingly. Perhaps the better writers/thinkers amongst us can catch the drift of what I'm trying to express and fashion it more clearly. Doloresflower, where are you????