Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 228 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@AKA Smith
[Read the article: Clinton news roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I said: "If Hillary did the same thing, is that sexism too?"
You said: Yes, of course. Women can be sexist against women. However, such discrimination is more serious than that even. It's against the law.
OK. Then let's investigate all 3 campaigns for this, and bring all of them up on charges if we find any evidence. Agreed?
I hate discrimination too. And I want what's best for our country and all the people in it.
As to what Obama could have done, he could have made it clear that Jesse Jackson Jr. comment about Hillary didn't cry for Katrina was wholly inappropriate.
Well, that's a comment I honestly haven't heard until you just mentioned it. But as a retort, Hillary could have made it clear that Bill's utter dismissal the totals of entire states because "Jesse Jackson won there too" was wholly inappropriate. I'm not sure, but I don't recall her addressing that issue.
But this was a looooong primary. I'm we sure we could each break out quite a laundry list for each other, of things that our supported nominee or their surrogates said or *didn't* say about the other. And triple that for their surrogates.
We can compare these lists, and be righteous, and know for sure in our hearts that the other campaign was wrong, bad, and wrong and bad.
As for me, I liked Hillary before this campaign; I voted for when she ran for Senator in New York. I like her now. So I'd rather avoid all this, and concentrate on the future.
-
@ AKA Smith
[Read the article: Clinton news roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I said: Then let's investigate all 3 campaigns for this, and bring all of them up on charges if we find any evidence. Agreed?
You said:
You let us know what you find. Believe me, if it came to light that the Clinton or McCain campaigns discriminate in paying their staffs based upon gender, I will be just as angry. However, as of yet, I have read nothing of it.
Before you mentioned this, I had read nothing of this in *any of the 3* campaigns, Obama's included. So I googled.
I found a study of salaries that said the Clinton and Obama campaign's salaries for women was, on average, lower than that for men. But it's also true that the Obama campaign's discrepancy was quite a bit larger.
The Clinton campaign also had a much higher ratio of paid women to paid men than the other campaigns. I expect this is because the Clinton campaign attracted more successful and established professional women than did the Obama campaign, because they were (understandably) excited to support a female candidate. This has the effect of raising the overall average of male to female.
But yes, on it's face it appears that the Obama campaign tended to pay women less than men for the same work. So, while I doubt very much that this is a deliberate policy on Obama's part, I agree that Obama should remedy this situation.
-
Bloomberg as VP -no way.
[Read the article: Clinton news roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bloomberg brings nothing to the ticket that Barack Obama already has.
But none of the points you mention will matter to voters that Obama doesn't already have. Republican voters also won't care if Bloomberg is technically GOP. They already rejected Romney.
Further, Bloomberg as VP exposes the ticket to anti-Semitic sentiment, on top of the already-existing racism and xenophobia towards Obama.
And perhaps the worst, it gives more weight to crap charges of "elitism". Now, it baffles me that anyone can say with a straight face that one of these candidates is "more" elitist than any other - they're ALL Ivy League-educated millionaires. And that's all they've been for decades. Some might even say centuries.
But if we're talking perception, then that "elitist" baggage is something else Bloomberg would bring to the ticket.
Barack doesn't even need Bloomberg to guarantee New York - he'll already win it, hands down.
The one possible benefit to adding Bloomberg to the ticket, would be that it would help Obama overcome this ridiculous Muslim meme among the Florida's powerful Jewish voting bloc.
-
@Splendide - McCain's better? How?
[Read the article: Clinton news roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We don't have reproductive rights.
Well, I think there's a difference between "some" and "none". A lot of the reasons that we don't have more of the rights you want, is directly because of conservatives and the GOP.
The GOP is blocking accurate sex ed in every state they can; the GOP brought us the partial-birth exclusion. Now it's true that Democrats can and should do more. But they're not the source of the situation. So I don't think that forfeiting the field to the GOP really makes things better.
If McCain wins because of it, so be it; he's better on the economy,
I don't see how this can possibly be true in any way, shape, or form.
Bush's economic policies have been disastrous. Obama offers a return to the concepts of investment in the middle class and lower class, that helped bring us the boom and surplus of the 1990's.
Whereas McCain's policies are not different from Bush's in any substantive way. So, more of the bad same.
But don't take my word for it. Please, read up:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/06/obama-economic-advisors-and-economic.html
I think he's much more realistic about diplomatic matters and Iraq than Obama.
Again, how? How is that the case? McCain does not differ in any meaningful way from Bush's, and Bush's is policy has been a disaster. So, more of the bad same there too.
-
@ Bloomberg as VP - no way
[Read the article: Clinton news roundup]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Opening sentence should read "Bloomberg brings nothing to the ticket that Barack Obama needs.
Preview is my friend.
-
"she also strikes me as pretty racist" - how?
[Read the article: Fox News calls Michelle Obama "Obama's baby mama"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have not seen, heard or read of anything Michelle Obama has said or done that's seemed racist or even "entitled to be angry". Not in any way.
Do you have any sources or citations for this? If not, then please remember it's innocent until proven guilty - and ways that people "seem" is not evidence. Especially for an accusation like that.