Letters to the Editor
Foodle
Published Letters: 45
-
@jebldmm
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hhatchet already said it well. There are numerous examples of Hillary, Bill, and other Clinton campaign staff complaining about the boys unfairly ganging up on poor Hillary, that she is being kept out of the boys' club, that she is going to beat the boys at their game, etc. Hillary has made multiple appearances at women's colleges and women voters groups at which she made explicitly gender-based complaints and appeals -- arguments that boil down in their essence to the claim that it is time for an oppressed member of our group to take control from the entrenched powers that be, and to fight the good fight for us.
Even when Barack Obama speaks to groups of African Americans, he makes appeals for unity, and he does not make such divisive, identity politics, It's Our Turn!, Us against Them appeals and arguments. In part that is because the notion that Obama is lucky to be a black man while Hillary is only at a disadvantage by being a woman is utter nonsense if you only stop to consider the demographics. Even Bill Clinton in an honest moment would admit that if Obama makes himself out to be the black candidate and thereby secures 90% of the black vote, winning that overwhelming majority out of just 12.4% of Americans would only leave him in Jesse Jackson's company: able to win a South Carolina primary and little else. On the other hand, if Hillary could secure the overwhelming majority of female voters, winning that majority out of a majority group would advance her a long way toward the goal of winning an election. Indeed, securing the female vote is almost the only reason why Hillary's campaign is still marginally viable.
But I also believe that Obama would not play divisive identity politics even were he securely a member of a majority. It is not in his nature. It is evidently in Hillary's nature to seek her own advantage by dividing groups (even her own political party) while at the same time loudly complaining of unfairness when she is referred to in other than group neutral language. However unfair the gender-based attacks and some of the stereotypes are, Hillary's seeking to play both sides of the coin to her advantage is simply neither persuasive nor attractive to many voters.
Beyond that duplicity, there is the simple fact that very few persons of any gender or group achieve positions of leadership and power by complaining about how unfair it is that they are not the leader. Leaders lead and succeed despite having to contend with obstacles and unfairness, not because they're good at complaining about the unfairness of those who control the routes to power.
-
Are Carrie and the gang the high-heeled equivalents of the Incredible Hulk?
[Read the article: The superheroes of "Sex and the City"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No.
-
"I think Clinton earned at least 24 hours to think about her next move"
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What has she been doing for the past couple of months? It could not have come as a surprise to Clinton that she undeniably lost the nomination. She should have expected and been planning for that eventuality for quite some time before Tuesday night.
-
Of course he granted your point, Joan
[Read the article: Going down with the Titanic?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I noted that the problem was really that the doomed ship didn't have enough lifeboats -- a point he granted me, remarkably.
Your point was a stupid irrelevancy. The point of the slowly sinking ship vs. dangerous lifeboat analogy depends on the relative perceived safety of the generic sinking ship vs. the generic lifeboat, not on the details of whether there were enough lifeboats on the Titanic or what color its hull was painted.
-
Forget "How did this happen?"
[Read the article: Finale wrap-up: "Battlestar Galactica"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's start with "When did this happen?" Was Earth nuked long ago, or only just recently? An examination of isotopes in the debris should provide a quick answer....
-
What Mara actually said
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So Liasson just flatly stated that "the American people" -- as opposed to "the left wing base," which is (of course) a different animal altogether -- don't want to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months but instead favor withdrawal only when "facts on the ground" permit it.
No, Glenn. What Mara said was that the American people want a commander in chief to look at the facts on the ground instead of just sticking to some campaign promise. Most probably, the American people believe, or want to believe, that the facts on the ground do and will next January favor withdrawal in 16 months. That is also what Obama believes. Whether those beliefs will survive a careful assessment early next year, and what will happen if they do not are key questions, to which the answers are unclear. In the meantime, you shouldn't take liberties with what Liasson actually said.