Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 228 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Point 2: Sexism vs. racism
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It bothered many women that he never spoke out about the sexism Clinton faced during the campaign.
Ms. Walsh - did Clinton ever speak out about the racism *Obama* faced during his campaign?
I do know that several high-level people associated with her campaign- including Bill Clinton - made repeated "gaffes" that seemed racially tinged at best. Like dismissing Obama's victories in states because "Jesse Jackson won there also". I mean, wtf is that? Can you imagine Obama saying, "New York? Well, that doens't matter. Of course all those women vote for Hillary, so that doesn't really count."
I mean, come on here.
I know what Clinton *did* say - when these crap rumors that Obama was somehow a Muslimian Candidate, programmed at the age of 5 to move to America and become President, Clinton said "Well, we should take him at his word".
Honestly. That would be like Hillary being accused of being part of a lesbian conspiracy, and Obama saying "we should take her word that she's not a lesbot."
I honestly think this is a real blind spot for you. I like your writing and your thinking. But in this article, your statements are not lining up with the facts.
-
Point 3: And just....Wow
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]At this point Ms. Walsh - I ask you to reconsider these statements:
Despite invidious, evidence-free claims of a racist "Bradley effect" working against Obama,
[cough]West Virginia[cough]
And this boggles my mind:
He needs to schedule meetings with Clinton's top female supporters. (It's probably too much to ask, but I'd love to see a lunch with Geraldine Ferraro. Ask for her thoughts on winning women and Reagan Democrats.
!!!!!1!!
Geraldine Ferraro, who basically laid her racism out on the table by saying it was IMPOSSIBLE for a black man to win? To a fellow Democrat, when we're all facing the possibility of another disastrous GOP president in November.
He should counter the sexism of *the media* by meeting with someone who was directly racist **against him personally**??
How does that make sense? And here you blow my mind again further:
Explain that being the first serious black presidential candidate is a little harder than maybe it looked.)
So, Obama should go to the person who a) cast doubt on his ability to win, and b) said he was "lucky to be black" because otherwise he "would not be in this position"....and he should ask this person for advice on how to win - because it might be harder than he thought???
That's not only patronizing (or should I say matronizing?) - it ****doesn't even make sense****.
I really think you are up against a blind spot in your own thinking on this subject.
-
Point 4: Obama's graciousness
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But after winning almost 18 million votes and essentially tying Obama in the popular vote, I think Clinton earned at least 24 hours to think about her next move.
Finally, Ms. Walsh, you are dancing right over a key point here.
Hillary Clinton did not *essentially tie* Obama. She LOST to him there, as well. Which would not matter so much EXCEPT that in her somehow-this-is-still-victory speech, she claimed that she got "more primary votes than any candidate in history".
Which is not true, because Obama received more votes than her ***even if you count Michigan, where he didn't campaign***. Which means - it's a lie.
Now, as a journalist - don't you think this sort of lie should be acknowledged? Even - or perhaps especially - if it's from a candidate you prefer?
Now, the delegate count is all that really matters. The popular vote is a rationale in this case.
Which is why Obama himself was gracious to Clinton in his victory speech. He didn't call her out on this lie, before and afterwards. He instead built her up - but Clinton herself showed no such class towards him. To listen to her speech, you'd think she'd won herself.
But that, really, is part of why she lost the campaign. Well, that, and her vote on the Iraq resolution.
-
Thank you Ancient Assyrian
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hopefully we can now all move past this.
Woo.
-
@Terry - thank you also
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cutting right to it.
-
@Ravanne
[Read the article: Obama taking over DNC, but Dean will remain chairman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why all the talk over Obama "taking over" the DNC?
Because he won. Therefore he gets to take over the DNC.
So far, Obama has only won the nomination and only by a nose.
Just like the World Series or the Superbowl - it doesn't matter if you win by 1 point or 1 million.
He is now the party's nominee. That's it. End of story.
-
@Splendide
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Alright then. Me, I don't want what will effectively be a third Bush term.
I'd rather have someone in who will actually do something on, oh, take your pick:
- health care
- Iraq
- the budget deficit
- rebuilding our infrastructure
And as for Obama being merely a "visionary" - he was also smart, practical and pragmatic enough to defeat an entrenched, powerful, and connected Democrat with worldwide name recognition.
And his campaign is still flush with cash, whereas Hillary's is $20 million in the hole - most of it from her own pockets.
He sounds more like an achiever than a visionary, to me.