Letters to the Editor
sigmund5
Published Letters: 319 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Joan--beneath contempt...strawman arguments
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan, You have gone too far this time. To suggest that those of us who want Hillary to give up a pointless campaign base it on considering Hillary supporters racist is beyond the pale. It is worse than a strawman argument..it is race baiting. Shame on you
-
Joan..thanks for responding but still your job is not to...
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why sink to addressing dorks who make those silly arguments that Hillary supporters are racist? Your position requires something more objective and somber. Why get caught up in that noise? That is not your job...sorry
-
All the back and forth...the reality is..and we all agree...
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It comes down to the fact that Hillary has a 5% chance of getting the nomination. People! stop sounding like Fox accolades! on both sides. I have appreciated the extension of the primary process to this god forsaken state of Indiana and the interest and energy...but it has to end at some point. It doesn't matter who Edwards endorses or Richardson, at some point the cannons have to pointed towards McCain.
As an Edwards supporter I have taken the stance of 6 to the half dozen to the other. In terms of policy a great distinction can't be made..so all grow up. However, the recent craziness of the Clinton campaign has betrayed an element of ambition, which is the basis of politicians, pointed to a baseness that is distasteful.
Her suggestion several weeks ago that she would accept Obama as a running mate was....pure craziness and showed a lack of respect for reality. It was completely disrespectful and points to the problem of her getting the nomination in that it requires the negation of the black and youth vote.
Hillary's hope is based on complete breakdown or kneecapping of Obama. She has to recognize that if she gets the nomination based on super delegates it is based on internal political power and will alienate a substantial portion of the electorate.
For me there is NO obvious policy differences to warrant such a gamble that could break the back of the party.
-
ya know...
[Read the article: Would you vote for a smoker?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am sure it has been said, but a lot of other crap happened today...jeeeez what is this site becoming?
-
What Kim P said...
[Read the article: Would you vote for a smoker?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]she is exactly right...I find myself more and more not bothering to come by this site recently...what is goin on? guess you still have Glenn
-
wow..so many posts...Joan did you ever take a social science class?
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Jackasses who heckle Hillary or jackasses who claim that Hillary supporter are racist, let alone a crappy poll question carried out by a questionable organization....shouldn't you just stop and think a bit? your comments don't provide much to clarify this issue...esp. after your bogus statements about the minister...couldn't you find something more ...ahhh ...never mind.
-
acmescreenname....
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You might be a bit over the top in your criticism of Joan...but maybe not. Glenn's latest post kinda indicts Joan. The ONE big thing that Salon doesn't seem to address is class. I raised the class issue once in relation to Hillary's claim that 93K is middle class...wow..that went over like a lead ballon on this hipsite.
-
what we know? charisma etc...spin aside but we do know some things about the Clinton era
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is possible that Obama is all charisma etc.. The question, not based on race or sex, is which way we should tilt the balance for a race that has no discernable policy diff at this point. From my position there is little difference that warrants the crazy rhetoric we have seen...but there are some historical points to consider from the Clinton era
1. Nafta
2. The deregulation of the telecoms that has had a huge impact that has helped the corporate elite that paid the Clintons well.
3. Devolution of Welfare....While claiming that changes would be coming after signing the historic change that removed the federal safety net, nothing was done and now....states don't have to provide medicaid funding for people who are deemed disabled by the federal government. States are taking the money they can save from BS standards to cut taxes. That is shameful. In the state of Indiana if you are considered disabled by the SS administration and make 6500 dollars you can't get medicaid funding thru the state....
Not sure if Obama is gonna cut such deals, and his tv spots might be filled with a lot of exagerations..the fact remains that he gets most of his money from smaller donars and will be less beholden...that is a possibility that makes the big difference.
-
Joan...you don't get race or class
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To list the supposedly powerful black people you mention is well...pointless in trying to make sense of what is going on in cities or in the real world. Sorry, but you sound like a limoobscene liberal. Have you taught a class or worked in the criminal justice system. Those names mean NOTHING and in fact allow those with power to act in a way that soothes their consciences.
You mentioned Henry Louis Gates...who is not actually a radical. But as I watched PBS and listened to NPR's coverage of MLK's big day, I didn't hear Eric Dyson or other academics that aren't considered "public". No, I heard David Brooks, who made a "pilgramage" on the date to offer his "feelings". The feelings that soothes conservatives but by default white liberals. The rest of the PBS "discussion" was lame african american scholars trying to make points in a free for all that would have made fox proud.
As it seems to be the same here, the radicalness of MLK's points about the war and capitalism have been ignored for haigiography that cleanses guilt for white liberals. This is born out by the refusal of Bill and Hillary to praise Obama's speech on race..instead it was politely ignored so as to further tacit kneecapping.
It was at that point that I decided the game was over....
-
@karen22
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you really so ignorant of class and politics? The politics involved in this has sooo much less to do with gender than other issues. I would hope that feminists would be interested and capable of making such distinctions. Sorry as a movement that relies on thought your post only makes you sound as a marginal dork or someone from the right being an agent provateur