Letters to the Editor
CeliaInSF
Published Letters: 495 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Susan McGee
[Read the article: McCain campaign baits Obama on Clinton slurs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ted Kennedy didn't have anything to do with the unfortunate 'fatal attraction' comments. That was Steve Cohen of Tennessee as sited in the article and as noted by Joan he later apologized.
Kennedy said Clinton was not - or more accurately that we need someone "in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations". Which is neither inappropriate (maybe indelicate) or untrue and not sexist.
I think you're misunderstanding is probably an artifact of Joan's cheap job of trying imply guilt by association. And likening on statement to another- when in fact you have to really contort to try and mash those things up.
When you say the sexism is rampant- do you mean in the campaign or in these forums?
-
Green Job = concern troll?
[Read the article: Hillary enters death-with-dignity phase]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hi Green Job, I think it is pretty obvious that people are arguing that the Supreme Court is one of the most important things that the president will do in the next few years. Not that that is the number one issue with voters. We’re a bunch of political junkies arguing about the election and talking about issues of paramount importance not popularity.
But I think you know that and are trying out some concern trolling. Better than the vitriol from the rethug trolls here who insist they will vote for McCain to spite the country.
The other thing- you also seem very worried about fairness between New Hampshire, Michigan and Florida. There’s no real equivalency here. New Hampshire already first in the nation status was protected. They moved it back because other primaries were encroaching on their date. MI and FL were told in no-uncertain-terms that they would be punished. I personally love the idea of taking away their superdelegates and leaving the committed delegates from the vote in some proportion.
However, there is no sense in comparing this primary to the republican – the parties get to make up their own rules about how they determine their nominee. There is nothing in the constitution about this and technically no one can be disenfranchised from the primary. But the parties want to attract and keep members, be seen as fair or people will walk away from their parties (which is happening in large numbers anyway.) If we wanted to and everyone agreed on it we could pull a name out of a hat or put golden tickets in candy packages to determine our nominee.
FWIW the democratic party system in the primary is proportional since that best reflects the values of the party and its members. The republicans do winner take all that comports with their black/white good/evil world view and I think the libertarians do a raffle with the serial numbers from their riffles.
-
My point Green Job
[Read the article: Hillary enters death-with-dignity phase]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]was that the SCOTUS argument is one here, among political junkies and wonks. Not about making a broad based appeal to the electorate. And the point with SCOTUS is the long term damage those appointments can make. Witness Bush's two choices.
The argument keeps coming up because there are some republican' troll in our midst who keep saying that if Obama wins the nomination they will vote for John McCain. People usually try to appeal to their better nature- why would you do that to the country? - which doesn’t work because they have no better nature. Then we try to reason - look John McCain will have the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court justices! - you don't want that for the future, do you? But they’re not thinking about the common good or future importance of the high court. Because they are republican trolls!