Letters to the Editor
chimpygo
Published Letters: 201 Editor's Choice: 2
-
@jeblbmm
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]jeb: "I've come to be a bit obsessed about the campaign, especially the overt sexism toward Clinton and the manipulation of anti-racist sentiment to benefit Obama. But the very worst part of all of this is seeing so-called 'progressives' either tolerating or actively participating in attacks on a fellow progressive."
Eloquent. And I honestly do see where you're coming from. Certainly there are Obama supporters who try to parlay anti-racism into "vote Obama." But to me,this column itself reads like the manipulation of anti-mysogynistic sentiment for the sake of Clinton's campaign.
I also tend to think Hillary's campaign brought both racism and sexism into the campaign--not because they're haters, but because the numbers favor them and maybe they think they're so right that the ends justify the means. We could dig back into South Carolina, etc, to try to untangle this...
As for attacking fellow progressives--H. Clinton has attacked Obama repeatedly, but only sometimes in substantial, policy-related ways.
She has also insulted her fellow progressive in these ways:
--You are a plagiarist! (Clinton used lines from her husband and other democrats in her closing at this very debate, proving once and for all that someone letting you use their ideas doesn't rise to the charge.)
--While McCain (who wants to bomb Iran) would make a fine Commander in Chief, Obama isn't ready. He's ready to be my vice-president, though, a "heartbeat away."
--Obama supporters are naive fools. Optimism and idealism are worthy of scorn.
--sniper fire "mis-statment"
--hopsital story "erorrs"
etc,, etc.
I mean, are we at all watching the same thing? I know I've got my own Obama biases, but I started out appreciating Hillary, (even though I feared but thinking that her foreign and economic policies are too Goldwaterish).
But when I saw her departing from issues and respectful debate to wallow in the "kitchen sink" strategy I got really angry.
If Hillary, as a good progressive, cares about tolerance and mutual respect as a good progressive, why when asked if Obama is a Christian, did she say "as far as I know"? Did she really not know?
Because she's intentionally "triangulating," stoking white fears of Islamic people and trying to tie them to Obama. Ferraro stoked anti-white-guilt anger and resentment pretty darn effectively. Go team.
-
@joemartin64
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Shouldn't everyone be a little honest and acknowledge that it's foolish to argue about comparative group victimization levels?"
I agee. I've been trying to beat on this drum, too--not to diminish women or the very real sexism they face, but because I favor humanism over most other -isms.
-
hmm
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Democratic presidential candidates do fine in states in the middle of the black population range, like New York. It's mostly the states with the lowest and the highest African-American shares -- both Idaho, less than 1 percent black, and Mississippi, nearly 40 percent black, are GOP fiefdoms -- that are the least hospitable to Democrats."
--Brad Delong
Wow, that's interesting! What does that mean?
-
I wouldn't mind seeing an Obama/McCain debate
[Read the article: Bitter as hell in Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not that McCain doesn't have a grasp of the issues, but McCain would be so hamstrung by the sheer absurdity of the Bush positions he is supporting (despite his attempts at stylistic distinction)that it just might make some voters take a second look.
-
Jordan Rules and the Triangle Offense
[Read the article: Obama, get ready for the "Clinton rules"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's the thing: Hillary has been the subject of a great many unfair and inaccurate attacks, and apparently has come away from them with a certain respect for those tactics and pride in her ability to withstand and deliver them.
Obama, who is reluctant to embrace the politics of "personal destruction," and would rather talk about old-fashioned principles and realities, is clearly is pantywaist.
Hillary Clinton, who (I guess?) has a mean pool shot and attends a barbeque a week, stands with the economic elites but has scorn for those of us who don't agree with her "ends justify the means" strategy of oligarchy and trickle-down help for working class people.
Some fancy-pants elitists would argue that support for working class Americans should be largely symbolic rather than practical.
[Similiar to flag-burning debate: better to venerate the flag as abstraction than do the hard f'ing work of trying to embody the principles it represents.]
I was raised in the enlisted soldier class, which doesn't make much money but does have a certain attachment to ideas like "duty" and "honor."
There were time when I erroneously believed that supporting the troops meant 1) using force only when necessary, 2) having a plan, 3) delivering the troops the best equipment, 4) providing adequate health care to the troops we ask so much of, and 5) doing our best to strenghten the democratic republic they're sworn to uphold by engaging in susbstative adn relevant policy debates.
Thanks, Salon, for helping to set me straight. I see now that distorting the truth to play into people's biases is far more important than not sending their jobs overseas.
Go Hillary!