Letters to the Editor
CindyLu
Published Letters: 7 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Obama is not a spin virgin - demand more
[Read the article: Clinton has "Girlfriend posse" to thank?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to jump in here. You know, it's time that we critically examine the candidates. This is just an observation of mine, but Obama supporters seem unable to see the drawbacks of their candidate or his past history of spin. What would it mean if Obama supporters could admit that in this race, he has a few cracks in his personae and has done some spin? What would it mean?
So I'll balance things out here:
First of all, Obama voted "present" to IN THE WORDS OF A PLANNED PARENTHOOD leader, "give him some cover." He did this so that he would not vulnerable pro-life voters. To vote present, as the Planned Parenthood leader said, is not to vote pro-choice. It is to give you cover. Not taking leadership. Taking cover. Enough said.
Here's some websites that mention Obama's spin and tactics:
On his healthcare ideas, he makes stuff up:
http://www.factcheck.org/obamas_creative_clippings.html
Also, Obama and Hillary's record on Iraq have been almost identical. From ABCNEWS:
"In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against."
Obama, in difference to Hillary, has said, however, that he'd take us into Pakistan militarily to finish the search for terrorists. Just what we need, to attack the unstable nuclear nation of Pakistan....
The NewStateman writes he lets his friends in the Senate do the work, while he leaves them swinging in the wind and is not the peace leader at all he leads us to believe:
"But he has not been the sainted man of peace his supporters portray, either. In his three years in the Senate he has kept his head safely below the parapet, leaving two congressional colleagues - Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania - to spearhead opposition to the war on Capitol Hill. In 2006 he voted against a Senate resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops and has also voted to continue funding the war.
Most recently, he said he would not hesitate to send US troops into Pakistan without Pakistan's permission to hunt down terrorists, and he insists that the US must not "cede our claim of leadership in world affairs". He wants the military to "stay on the offensive, from Djibouti to Kandahar" and to increase defence expenditure. Like most identikit US mainstream politicians, he talks of "rogue nations" and "hostile dictators", and says the US must maintain "a strong nuclear deterrent" and be ready to "seize" the "American moment". He appeared to support Israel's attack on Lebanon, but then said "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people" - which, in turn, he denied saying.
In the meantime he let his mentor and fellow senator from Illinois, Dick Durbin, swing alone in the wind after Durbin - perhaps the most liberal Democrat in the Senate - compared US interrogation techniques of prisoners in Guantanamo with those of the Soviet Union, Nazis and Khmer Rouge. He voted to reauthorise the Bush administration's repressive Patriot Act, and says that as president he would not rule out a US first-strike nuclear attack on Iran.
His equivocations and contradictions thus proliferate......"
-
I thought the article was self-promoting of her career
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jessica has a book out about "young feminists" and she never misses and opportunity to support her own personal brand and slam "mainstream feminism." It's more about her sales figures than peace. Oh, and there are no young feminists in "mainstream feminism." She knows this. And none that support Clinton, apparently. She draws a line of opposition. And of course, she is on the more high minded side - in her mind.
How else do you describe an article, allegedly about coming together, that doesn't miss a chance to slam Clinton supporters while Obama supporters are wonderful? Older feminists are supposed to, in her words, support the leadership of younger feminists - I guess like her. How dare they ask for her support!! It doesn't cut the other way for her.
What is wrong for feminists to suppport Clinton and be very vocal in saying they believe it is the most feminist choice?
Jessica writes that the problem is all about the older feminists not listening to the younger feminists. Wow, that was easy. If only we had a book on the subject...hmmmmmm.... Of course, it does not cut the other way. For an older feminist to ask Jessica to listen to her about Clinton is apparently spliting heaven and earth and insulting. And they should go away, bow out, and stop making younger feminists so uncomfortable.
This is not the feminism we are all fighting for. It is ok for women to get behind Clinton and to question other women about their support of other candidates. And vice versa. It's ok that we do not all agree with Jessica. And it's ok for older feminists to do other tasks in the movement besides building Jessica's career and applauding her all the time.