Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Jay Bee
Published Letters: 55 Editor's Choice: 5
"i wouldn't for one second feel the burden on my shoulders if roe v. wade was overturned. that burden would sit with those people who assumed that we women (of all ages, it's not just the "older" ones, as I am not one of the older ones) would be okay with not being seen. not anymore we aren't."
Are you kidding me?!?! Are you bleedin' KIDDING me?!?! You don't care what happens to young women and their rights because you didn't get your pet candidate?
In five years, when my daughter is 17 and McCain is president after people like you sat out the election, how about YOU explain to her why you didn't give a crap about the big picture. Because what happens in the fall is a hell of a lot bigger than you, me, or a particular person running for office.
I myself was profoundly disappointed by the events of the Clinton administration, as it was clear that BC's dalliances would be a cudgel righteously wielded by the RWE (right wing establishment) to further their own agenda. I still don't know if a vote for impeachment was at all appropriate, but at the very least a formal censure was called for.
This being said, applying the same metric for the Bush administration, I should think we still DO have a good use for Guantanamo. Let's start with members of the MSM for good measure. Frankly, reports from the prison could be a new angle for traitors like Broder.
The Doctor for VP pick! Obama would be ready for GOP attacks when he already knows how and when they will all happen! Best of all, he'll be ready for the Daleks! Everyone wins!
For every woman like Teensy who dares us to say anything that might drive her away from the Democratic Party (and I suspect that this is not posturing on her part - correct, Teensy?), there will be a host more of formerly Democratic women "crossing over" or sitting out. I suspect the majority of them are white, educated, upper middle class, and were ready to break away sooner or later.
And why? That one is a lot harder to substantiate. Many of these folks backed Bill Clinton, who was even younger running for the Presidency, governor of a pretty small-time state (other than corporate HQ of WM - something I have always wondered about), and had a long history of dalliances with women of a certain type. We can say what we will about Obama, but he appears to genuinely be a family man who believes in community organizations and possesses an almost singular drive to bring transformation to table. Race is almost certainly a factor, but I doubt that it is nearly as significant as the MSM would like us to believe.
We are seeing a major realignment in parties, one that began a while ago and is now gaining momentum. For every woman (or man, for that matter) leaving the party, it seems that two more sign on. An issue of potentially massive significance often ignored or glossed over on Salon (I think - feel free to correct me if I am wrong, here) is a wave of younger Evangelical Christians who identify with Obama's faith and message of transformation. Stephen Mansfield's upcoming book about him is only going to further Obama's inroads among this group.
One has to wonder if a flood of progressive evangelicals makes some among the "old guard" nervous. The Democratic party will look very different a year from now than it did a year ago, and I personally feel it is about time (YMMV).
As for the Republicans, this will leave them will little to do but wallow in the past, playing the role of obstructionist to all forms of change following the realignment this fall. They will be on the outside looking for for the first time in more than a generation and some of the old Dems (Lieberman, etc.) will have the distinct displeasure of sharing this dark space with them.
Thanks for competing in the Taken Out of Context Awards!
I specifically stated: "Race is almost certainly a factor, but I doubt that it is nearly as significant as the MSM would like us to believe."
In other words, yes, I AGREE with you that race is totally overblown.
I also made it clear that I was working with a fair amount of supposition in my many parenthetical meanderings. In the end, all I have are media snippets and a few anecdotal experiences.
But you remain interested in remaining angry, and if that's your prerogative, so be it. The terms "arrogant jackass" and "shit the rainbows" are certainly the icing on your cake.
All I tried to do was make it clear that as always, the trend is oversimplification, and we are missing out on whole other issues. You seem more interested in rolling in the mud. Shall I assume that you are not attracted to conciliation and unity and find it to be a bunch of moon-eyed horse pocky? Again, your choice.
Lastly - good for you that you were once engaged to a black man. Since I DID state that race wasn't a big deal, don't expect me to congratulate you on being open-minded, or to give you bonus points for a certain special perspective.
...because he can. When everybody and their brother/sister/cousin-in-law throws $25 or $50 toward a candidacy, it turns the old ideas of financing on their heads.
This appears to demonstrate that Obama is less a moon-eyed idealist than a real-world pragmatist. I find that comforting, to be honest.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
