Letters to the Editor
biloquist
Published Letters: 7
-
The question isn't how, but why.
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is so sad. I suppose the day had to come where what was meant by "feminism" was as watered down, as devoid of rigorous and painful self-reflection as "I can do what I like." This bald, banal retort serves as the defense of a feminist endorsing not a smart, experienced older woman but a catastrophically unskilled but attractive young man whose empty rhetoric passes for wisdom in this celebrity-addled, image-driven, critically-void culture of ours.
Obama makes people feel; mostly, it seems, feel good. This characteristic, which he holds in common with the good and the evil indifferently -- think JFK, sure, but think Jim Jones at the same time -- is spoken of as though it is, itself, the same as an ethics, a biography, a history and a future all wrapped together in one media-friendly bundle. Michelman writes that she "knows" what Obama can be. Either she's a seer or else she "knows" what she feels and no more. I could respect her supporting John Edwards, since there were significant policy differences there that can be adequately understood in feminist/left terms. I have just reread her explanation of her endorsement of John Edwards in Salon Jan. 29 2007. It stressed the kind of long-term knowledge and experience-based evidence any sensible advocacy takes as its base.
This latest endorsement deviates from that reputable model in every way. There's no need to make it and to do so invites comment, and raises suspicion. Michelman is attempting to stop a woman with whose policies she agrees being elected President. That, simply put, is what she is doing. She's going out of her way to do it with this unecessary second endorsement and its egregiously under-argued defense. I am left thinking she has either fallen for the orotund cliches in which Obama revels or else her beef is with Clinton and it is personal. In either case, please, do not dress it up in feminism's garb.
-
Give me a break from those who want to tell me how to think
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Xrandadu Hutman wrote:
It's not about women voting for their own kind? Then why are people shouting "betrayal" at women and not at men?
and:
Anybody who thinks voting for Hillary is the only valid feminist choice is the one truly not "getting it." There are these things called the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, and other basic principles our society is founded on. Go read up.
You are missing the point. The issue isn't reducible to an argument over whether or not voting for Hillary "is the only valid feminist choice." Certainly, I don't think it is, since I wrote earlier that I could accept Michelman's earlier defence of her endorsement of Edwards over Clinton. We are not discussing what might be argued in theory. We are testing the actual case made by Michelman, the grounds she herself presents for endorsing Obama in preference to Clinton. Those are where her reason, and her feminism, are wanting.
I'll go further. I know that "identity politics" are supposed to be a big no no these days, but I have no problem with people deciding that the potential symbolic effect of having either Obama or Clinton elected POTUS is a significant factor to consider. It's possible to respect reasoning that differs from your own, after all, and we are talking politics in the real world, not philosophy. But that's not what Michelman said she was considering. She couched her decision rested in the same kind of contentless puff-speech (she just knows what he could be!) that's been coming from Oprah and a not surprising contingent of naive and sweet youngsters. From a somewhat harder nut like Michelman I suspect, as I said, she's either lost it or else her beef is with Clinton.
And, btw, most men are very good at supporting their own, which is why (along with a lack of opportunity) they are rarely charged with "gender betrayal." Just watch the numbers of Obama's white male supporters rise.
Xrandadu Hutman wrote:
Blacks have been exploited and discriminated against for millennia. Whites have not. They are distinct groups in society facing very different issues. Accordingly, it is not hypocritical to analyze one group differently than another."
And no, that's not a valid argument for whom one should support either.
Oh, it's not "valid"? Did someone die and make you king? Fascinating to see your straw man argument against tyrannical nay-sayers devolve into such adjudications.