Letters to the Editor
Riversofexile
Published Letters: 76
-
Creepy
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton gets serious]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She is getting "Serious", is she? What she not before? Hasn't she already been deemed to be one of the Beltway's Very Serious People in all things "foreign policy" to use Glenn Greenwald's phrase - despite (because of?) the inept policies she has supported, and inane attitude she's displayed in this campaign?
This Very Empty article first supposes we are shaking in our boots because an anticipated assassination of a US-supported politician ended-up taking place in Pakistan. It then tells us not just to ignore how we got here and Serious Clinton's part in this mess, but to actually embrace her Serious Posturing as is if empty words could cover-up Serious Incompetence. Smoke and mirrors.
The Very Serious People as well as our media, going along with Rice & Bush, overtly supported Bhutto and her return as palliative to our Dictator Friend over there, claiming that would help "stabilize things" - as if that particular band aid ever had a chance. They were grasping at straws, their irresponsible, reckless attempts again crashing and burning right before our eyes.
This odd article also wants us to believe that only the Very Serious People can "save and protect us", even though they have by their own actions, contributed a great deal to the current turmoil in the world.
We, the silly masses, are supposed to forget how we got to this awful point in the world order, and keep sending back the same old failures to power, to continue the same failed, stupid policies.
Quit insulting our intelligence.
-
Good for you
[Read the article: Why I'm still not for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And thanks for articulating this, it needs to be said. As a woman myself, and the mother of a young woman - I couldn't agree more.
I'm baffled, and disappointed by the apparently knee-jerk, incoherent support she gets from some feminist luminaries in this country - there seems to be a tribal aspect to this too.
Arguing in favor of such a flawed candidate from a gender equality perspective rather than her overall record actually diminishes women's struggles everywhere, in my view.
Also, this would not be the first woman elected leader of a country. It's been going on a while, and not just in the West. Ok, we have to catch-up on that, but it won't break new frontiers, might as well wait for a woman candidate women can really respect for her overall leadership, you know, someone who'll make us proud. Hillary is not that person, in my view.
-
Joan, it's not about you
[Read the article: Update: Michelle Obama disagrees with me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ok? Your columns are so sadly twisted, and your appearances on MSNBC even more so: trying, and failing, to come off as somewhat "fair, objective".
See, Joan, no one gives a damn about the 60s. Really. Either we've internalized those lessons by now, or we haven't and won't. Our man Barack may not have experienced them per se, but he was raised by someone who did, didn't he? Remember, his Mom, the anthropologist, and his grand-parents who also helped raise him? And didn't Barack, like the rest of us, grow-up with the consequences, good or bad, of the 60s???
There is a lot that you don't get about your own people - of all ethnic/life backgrounds, female, male, old, young - and that's fine. You don't get Obama and Michelle. That's fine too. But a lot of us, suffering readers of Salon, know your type of narrow mentality, we've only been exposed to it forever, all over the place.
Get this though: plenty of us in the citizenry - of all ethnic/life backgrounds, female, male, young, old - are utterly repulsed by the tactics of your preferred candidate. We don't buy into the "feminist" mantra, not from a woman who needs her husband to do battle for her, whose mediocre career is indeed an asterisk to her husband's name. And we believe it's time to move on from what your candidate offers, and hand the leadership of this country to some fresh, clean blood.
Contrary to your candidate, and her silly (way belated) claims in that regard, Michelle does have her own voice, is entitled to her own individual opinion. She is not prepared to give a pass to your candidate's ugly tactics. Neither are we, supporters of Barack Obama for President. We're not as magnanimous. We will not forget. That's what Michelle and us are saying. Get it?
-
You're the pundit you decry
[Read the article: Making sense of Super Tuesday]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was appalled at Joan's bizarre commentary about Barack's performance on Super Tuesday on Hardball last night - she seemed more agitated than usual, throwing pure nonsense out there, that fell flat.
Now - here is Joan, frustrated at the fair treatment Barack is getting from the media - and why wouldn't he? He respects the media, the media respect him back. Your candidate has a sordid history with the media, and it shows. That's all. The past is not so easily discounted, or your candidate would have secured the nomination by now, as she had anticipated.
As for Joan's wishful thinking - putting it as a question, a true and tried FoxNews method - that "[the media adoration, sic] will backfire", as long as the fact are reported, and the truth emerges, the Obama Campaign will be fine. Don't you worry your sweet pundit self.
-
Thanks, Kate
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for balancing out the female automatons we see regularly on Hardball, with their repulsive gender-absolutist advocacy for a lousy candidate.
I, a 51 yr old woman, am as turned-off by them, as the guys on the show are. So are both my kids, in their twenties, one of each gender.
Thanks for showing us that some of the leading US feminist voices are willing to examine more than the gender of a candidate.