Letters to the Editor
Rocky57
Published Letters: 215 Editor's Choice: 4
-
@Jebldmm
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...It's interesting that if I were to say to someone that 12% of the nation has received preferential treatment by getting the right to vote before 51% of their fellow citizens, there would be howls of indignation and lengthy diatribes spoken about how our democracy is being torn apart by catering to special interests. The pundits would be demanding equality for all. Substitute "African American" for 12% and "Female American" for 51%, and I get labelled as a racist..."
Wrong. If anything, you'd be labelled as uninformed and, perhaps, disingenuous.
6 pct of the population got the vote, during the period of Reconstruction, not 12 pct, and it wasn't an easy thing to do. Initially, all but the territories/states of Minnesota and Iowa voted Nay on universal voting rights for black men.
So IF you'd say "African-americans" got the vote before "white women," you'd not only be wrong but, once again, you'd be overlooking black women when you played your racial/gender calculus. You don't have to be an African-american to ask: "why is that?"
While sexism is an issue in this society, much of this current schmigilla, I believe, has been manipulated by a campaign that would excoriate Obama if he'd even mention a peep about being somehow racially disadvantaged during this primary season [oh, wait! That's happened even when it's been clear he hasn't said anything] A campaign that's cynically used gender as just one more dish in the kitchen sink to throw at a campaign that has simply been superior, at every turn, at campaigning than it has. Why the whipped up rancor? I'm looking at those tax and finance records with a special interest as to all those fees for Bill's bloviating for Colombia, Kazhakistan....
Maybe, somebody might be gittin' desperate knowing that some chits out there are gonna be called in that can't be covered.
Or, maybe it's the usual GOP trollery.
-
One proviso, Jebdlmm
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"white women" shouldn't be in quotes. Other than that, and with that 12 pct. you cited, I stand by the rest of the post.
-
Olberman is not a newsperson...
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Olbermann's great at what he does. He's an opinionator, an intelligent one, and not a journalist, and I appreciate his show. So often, he, his producers and his writers take a tack on a news story that Matthews, Abrams and Joe miss--and it's often a trenchant one.
As for his often unloading on Hillary? You can trace that back to the day her campaign started playing that subtle race card. He picked up on it and his rancor only increased with her dismissal of her fellow Democrat in favour of John McCain and herself and then sitting down with Fox, Rupert's WSJ and participating in that creepy Chinatown-like tableaux with Richard Mellon Scaife--I swear when I saw Scaife leaning sideways and peering at Hillary I had flashbacks of John Huston's Noah Cross leering at Belinda Palmer's Katherine--in the offices of the virulently anti-Clinton Pittsburh Tribune-Review.
-
@Saloney
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...His presidency has Americans thinking that no human could do much worse...."
RTFLMAO!
Exactly what I've thought since the man was elected.
-
Real Anger
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...I sense a real anger coming from Olbermann over just about anything Senator Clinton says...."
Real anger?
Of course. Keith looked askance at her War Authorisation resolution vote and the anger and disappointment continued to grow with every passing day she failed to adequately address that vote on the Campaign trail.
When she went negative with that almost sub rosa, "black" candidate campaign, his disposition was hardly improved and after she throttled that up to a roar, through her surrogates; her not slam dunking that 60 minutes moment re Obama's religion and then comparing McCain and herself favourably to Obama's disadvantage, he'd just about had enough and said so in a shorter version of one of those Countdown Comments for which he's noted.
But, what put the icing on the cake for Keith was her meeting with Fox and the man I'd consider a dead ringer for John Huston's Noah Cross, the arch-conservative wing-nut, Richard Mellon Scaife, to further strafe her fellow Democrat in a year when the GOP is ripe for the plucking. That was worthy of a comment, as well.
Don't blame Keith's ire on sexism, he doesn't carry the baggage of a Chris Matthews; blame it on the candidate and what she's done.
-
@Unschooler
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...but Joan's video clip focuses an awful lot of Keith Olbermann. While there were obvious sexist comments from the other news commentators, I do not find Olbermann's comments sexist in the least, he is merely criticizing Clinton and her campaign behaviors...."
Exactly. About a month and a half ago, Keith gave a preface to a segment about Hillary and the Primary; in it, he explained that he had long-standing ties with the Clintons and figures within the campaign but that he could no longer countenance what she was doing to the Party by the manner in which she was waging her fight for the nomination. Up until that point, he was pretty much neutral; after that, he was pretty much balls out against her. He went on to blast her during that segment and he's been putting the wood to her and her campaign ever since.
She's run an abysmal, just-this-side-of-Lee-Atwater campaign. And, she's done it with an imprimatur of entitlement that, early on, has alienated alot of people who might otherwise have been with her; whatever sexism has been directed at her campaign--and it does exist--has nothing to do with her current predicament. She's achieved that largely on her own.