Letters to the Editor
Mike LeP
Published Letters: 248 Editor's Choice: 4
-
You go Bill!
[Read the article: Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As an Obama supporter, I sincerely hope Bill Clinton keeps up the patently dishonest and somewhat racial line of attack. I believe this undercuts Hillary's argument that she's running on her own merits and makes her candidacy seem more like a trojan horse for her husband's third term. It also feeds into the chief criticism of Hillary, that she's a complete phony who'll do or say anything to win. So please Bill, keep using the first person plural ("we") whenever discussing your wife's campaign and keep up the thinly veiled racial attacks, but next time instead of Jesse Jackson try to compare Obama to someone like OJ Simpson, Louis Farrakhan or Michael Vick instead.
-
Convenient
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan,
These complaints about sexism would be a lot more credible if Hillary weren't the wife of a popular ex-president who started the campaign with millions of dollars on hand and a 20-year political apparatus backing her up.
I'm not particularly interested in quibbling over whether Hillary or Obama are more aggrieved. What's pretty much undeniable is that Hillary is running as much on her husband's merits as her own. I'm not saying she's not qualified. But if Hillary's last name were Smith, she'd still be a corporate lawyer on the board at Wall-Mart.
Given that huge advantage over Obama it seems kind of silly to complain about sexism. Can we just call it a draw and stop whining about which candidate has been victimized more by the media?
-
It's getting old Joan
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]***
I never intended to spend so much time on this blog arguing that Hillary Clinton has faced sexism in her historic presidential run because it's so self-evident.
***
Your original argument wasn't that Hillary has faced sexism, which is pretty obvious. Your argument was that Hillary has faced more sexism than Obama based on poll. Many of your readers argued that the results of the poll don't necessarily mean Hillary has faced more sexism. You've ignored that and changed the argument -- Now you claim you're arguing with those who say sexism doesn't exist.
***
I'd urge people who are minimizing the sexism Clinton faces, or who are trying to argue that racism against Obama has been just as public and disabling...
***
And here you go again, trying to make the point that sexism is more pervasive than racism. First of all, there's no way you could possibly prove that but your conclusion is counter-intuitive, considering women make up slightly more than 50% of the population but African Americans are around 10%.
Even aside from that, why are you even trying to compare the two? There's something really pathetic and dated about some of the feminist dinosaurs out there who keep playing the whiny victimood card, and Hillary supporter's eagerness to pit women vs. blacks is one of the many reasons I just can't support her candidacy.
You are embarrassing yourself now, Joan.
-
Joan is right and wrong
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As an Obama supporter I'm torn on the "Bittergate" issue.
On the one hand, I was a little disturbed by the initial comments. Not because I felt condescended by Barrack Obama. Because I realized what he said or at least the way he worded it has the potential to hurt him in the fall.
On the other hand, it's a really sad state of affairs when a candidate momentarily speaking the truth, albeit in a way that could be perceived as tactless, is the kind of "gaffe" that could prevent him from being elected.
So it's partly Obama's fault for saying something that could be easily distorted and misused by his opponents. But it's mainly the fault of political pundits like Joan who endlessly debate the effect of Obama's comments without any regard to whether they're true.
Far as this playing into the effette, out-of-touch liberal meme, all I can say is ... please. This is the same playbook the Republican party has used since 2000. The Democratic party could nominate Ronald Reagan and today's GOP would still be parsing his public quotes to make him out to be a flip-flopping radical lib.
The answer isn't to shrink away from saying or doing anything that might reinforce that meme. What candidates need to do is confront these charges head-on and without fear. This is exactly what the Obama has done, and now Joan says they're being "defensive."
You just can't win with some folks.
Finally, as a Pennsylvanian I'm more than a little tired of being told by talking heads that I want a voter who connects with me by pretending to like Yeungling and bowling. This is bullshit. Nothing is more elitist or condescending than candidates who visit my city for a cheesesteak and expect the photo in the Daily News to warm my heart, as if I'm going to vote for Hillary or Obama because they eat at Geno's and do shots like a regular Joe. No thanks.
Obama is from Chicago - not Scranton, not Harrisburg, not Allentown. He knows it. The voters know it. To be honest, it's refreshing to have a candidate who's NOT trying to convince me he's the kind of guy I'd meet at the local pub. Obama's poor attempt at bowling was, I thought, kind of endearing. On the other hand, Hillary's transparent attempts to show she's a longtime sportsman who does shots of whiskey on a regular basis, at least in my crowd, go over like a fart in church.
Joan, how about covering actually issues? Like policy positions and who might make the better president? Too many people in your line of work are so focused on covering the horse race that you forget there's something at stake in this election. As a PA voter, I find that more elitist and condescending than Obama's poor choice of words.
- Mike in Philly