Letters to the Editor
kenkapkk
Published Letters: 131 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Just some thoughts
[Read the article: What role did race play with white Democrats?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I want to exhibit compassion, but I have noticed in this letters thread an entirely different tone and depth of discussion than on Joan Walsh's blogs. Many of the responses here are incredibly informative and display great depth, and the general atmosphere is one of respect.
Ms Walsh's blog elicits a completely different dynamic. As physics says, the observer inpacts and changes the observed.
It saddens me that Ms Walsh brings out the worst in this community. Letters like these have always been one of the best parts of Salon, which has an incredibly intelligent community.
Personally, I think we need less aggrandizing of "latte drinkers" which interestingly enough seems to be an OK slur to sling around but God forbid we insult the white working class. And by the way, for all this dancing around the issue, it wasn't called a "Southern Strategy" for nothing, and Nixon didn't create it it and Reagan and the Republicans didn't exploit it of good will. See those "elitists" (which I will always hold against Clinton for using a core Republican talking point and was conveniently ignored by the panel-Jeez do ya think her demonizing him HELPED a little with those voters?)are perceived as the GENERATOR of those uppity policies? Even Bill Clinton admitted as such in 1991 when he talked about "scaring a bunch of insecure white guys". But let's just ignore the man (woman) behind the curtain. So Clinton played Nixon, what else was going to be new?
I would like to see a discussion on gender but my perception is it helped Clinton far more than hurt her. Her numbers for white males was fairly high and among the groups discussed was off the charts. Although its true many of the offenses and remarks toward her were real, I don't think her campaign suffered anything like the Obama volunteers in certain parts of the country.
-
Some things
[Read the article: Clinton says she's open to veep slot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the most crass move I've ever seen. As Perot was described, "At a wedding he needs to be the bride, at a funeral, the corpse." The Clintons are all about "me, me, me". She brings so much baggage to a ticket and now, instead, of a shred of graciousness, she lobs a hand grenade into the party. How much more to divisive can you be?
For all the Clinton supporters here, the Republicans are already running Hillary's disrespect of Obama as capable of being CIC as an attack ad. How the hell can she run as Veep when one of their main promotions is her words? This was prime in my parting ways with her, this win at all costs mentality with no thought of the consequences. She is the Democratic Nixon.
Second, I'm sorry but I'm really tired of this ignorant bullshit that Obama somehow disrespected her as a woman. You cite others, media, Jesse Jackson, whoever but OBAMA has never run against her on gender issues. Unlike Clinton who EXPLICITELY brought race into the equation.
You know what? Go hide in your little identity cave, your false information, your distortions because of your wounded pride or whatever.
Look I understand the anger and frustration. If the shoe were on the opposite foot, I would feel similarly. But for God's sake, base your beliefs on facts, not crap smear beliefs.
Grow up.