Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 101 Editor's Choice: 3
-
I agree she can take it -- I also agree she deserves it.
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton can take it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The advantage of this amazingly long debate year is that candidates may run out of waffling points, and Hillary seems to have done that.
I think, in terms of her using Bill's sort of roundabouts, she's falling into the same trap Gary Wills pointed out in Nixon Agonistes, i.e., that Nixon thought Eisenhower was politically shrewd and thought he could play the same game and that what he never understood was that Eisenhower was a political genius and that if you weren't one too, you were gonna get caught. (Oh yeah, Old Ike was just dear Old Uncle Fudd -- who only 7 years before had juggled the insane egos of DeGaulle, Montgomery, and Patton and managed to pull off the most complex military operation in history while each one was yammering and threatening about how HE should be in charge.)
I don't doubt that Hillary is as smart as Bill, but she's NOT the political genius he was.
There are more than a few women in congress and in state houses I would GLADLY vote for, but Hillary is not one of them. If she takes the nomination, I WILL VOTE for her, albeit reluctantly. Something brittle and duplicitous and sleazily opportunistic going on with her. Duplicitous and sleazily opportunistic is, of course, standard issue among politicans, but brittle is not a good thing.
I predicted more than three months ago that once in the booth, those who publicly say "I have no problem with a black man or a woman as prez" would vote for John Edwards." That was a very cynical prediction and I wasn't taking a position on a favorite because I didn't know who was what.
Now I add to that "Any one who really would like to see some changes in the legalized bribery system, would like to see the fascist aspects diminished (fascism -- without the Nazi spin -- in its literal sense -- a merger between state and corporations and howdy there) and would like a self-made certified dragon-killer to do the job will, I think, also vote for Edwards.
(Sorry to see Mike Gravel absent due to the press deciding his viewpoints weren't popular enough to be heard. So much for the liberal press.)
-
As to the press ganging up on her...
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton can take it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let loose the dogs of media --
I was quite lukewarm about Bill back in 1992 UNTIL he campaigned in New York where, as usual, the entire press corps went after him as if he were a cheese steak and they were starving rabid dogs.
And he stood in there and answered questions and never lost his temper and I was impressed and thought "OK, that guy could be president, he's got what it takes."
Also -- If you recall, even in his weird Monica deposition, I was met by Republican Bill-hating co-workers admitting the next day they were impressed -- two reasons
(1) he never lost his temper ("I would have kicked the crap out of that guy.") and
(2) he drank soda after soda and never took a break to pee, another talent a president could find quite useful.
So I say pile it on and let's find out if she actually CAN take it. It's political evolution in action...
-
So Di-Di says the telecom exec's excuse is ok...
[Read the article: Dianne Feinstein -- Bush's key ally in the Senate -- to support telecom amnesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They're saying "But we were only following orders," and she's saying "Oh well then."
Interesting -- we prosecuted Germany at the end of WWII and that phrase was no excuse, and ALSO prosecuted Japan for the partial drowning torture technique so glibly called "waterboarding" as if it were a surfboard adventure.
Of course the German high command's orders were considerably more egregious than the telecom execs but the principle -- assuming our governmental representatives still recognize such a thing as principles -- is still the same... isn't it?
-
I'm no fan of Senator Clinton but there is one ingrained sexist thing I noticed...
[Read the article: Clinton on the gender card]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everyone did something I have seen done (heard done) in doctor's and dentist's offices and elsewhere -- everyone on the stage was SENATOR Sock-Puppet or GOVERNOR Smiling-Man or whatever -- and Hillary was just plain Hillary.
I once inquired at my dentist's office "How come Dr. -------- is Dr. --------- but none of you (all women) have a last name?" (That included book-keeper, receptionists, dental techs, etc.)
If the position title is an honorific, then she is Senator Clinton. If it's not, then it's Joe and Dennis and John and Chris .
Fortunately Wolf Blitzer was NOT sexist in his moderator's role. He used everyone's title and also managed to be totally unaware of the meaning of ANYONE'S answers and interrupted most of them just as the person was making his or her point, and that included Senator Clinton.
However, he did serve us well by managing to be the most perfect example of a horrible example of a moderator I've ever seen -- and that's from high school class officers' debate to presidential. But he did not discriminate by gender.
-
Of course she is -- this is the gist of the comment I posted on yr previous (gender card) post:
[Read the article: Diamonds and pearls and the b-word]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everyone did something I have seen done (heard done) ONLY to women (and sometimes to minority people) in doctor's and dentist's offices and elsewhere -- first name familiarity -- everyone on the stage was SENATOR Sock-Puppet or GOVERNOR Smiling-Man but Senator Clinton was "Hillary."
First name familiarity is a modest way of diminishing someone: "Betty, wait for me in the car" or such like -- GW Bush does it a step farther, gives each person a nickname to further diminish them,
If the position title is an honorific, then she is Senator Clinton. If it's not, then it's Joe and Dennis and John and Chris, et al.
Wolf Blitzer was NOT sexist, however -- he called everyone by his or her honorific and treated everyone equally with total disrespect and lack of attention to or understanding of their answers, interrupting everyone, male or female alike, usually just as the person was making the point.
But he wasn't sexist about it.