Letters to the Editor
CeliaInSF
Published Letters: 639 Editor's Choice: 5
-
jeb
[Read the article: A place called Unity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think bearpaw1 meant this should be that direct appeal Hillary has to make:
Anyone who still puts their hurt feelings and/or loyalty to Hillary ahead of what she has actually asked them to do -- not to mention putting those feelings ahead of the best chance to actually get some of her ideas implemented -- is beyond reach.
No serious person would suggest that Obama doens't need to reach out to any of the groups you talked about. In fact, he is the first dem in years trying to seriously make inroads with said groups and running a true 50 state strategy.
-
ps
[Read the article: A place called Unity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I could be a little clearer there- the last direct appeal Hillary shoul dhave to make to her supporters to support the party nominee... Clinton has made her wishes clear- for the PUMA types and those saying they will write her in are ignoring her wishes. They are all of course, free to do that but you can't do it in her name or pretend you are still supporting her. She has asked for her supporters to go to Obama. It is very clear and she shouldn't have to say it again.
-
bearpaw1
[Read the article: A place called Unity]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]True and fair enough- I don't mean to put words in your mouth- just reacting to jeb trying to turn them inside out (one trick pony that one.) It was perfectly clear that you did not mean those who supported Clinton for the nomination should be ignored or their concerns ignored. That is just plain silly.
The phrase Clinton supporter needs to go into the past tense- Clinton is no longer in it for the nomination and has made her wishes clear that she supports the party nominee. Her former suporters are free to make of that what they will but can't use her name to justify their antics.
As you said, the pretenders we're always beyond reach. They are getting a little frantic as the only rational arguments they had melt away. Prepare for some new convusions as they whip up some fresh indignities and outrages :)
-
They are talking about it for the same reason you are blogging about it - MAXIMUM DRAMA
[Read the article: Leave Bill Clinton alone!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Drama makes for entertainment. Drumming up drama is not necessarily so great for news and information dissemination- both of which are necessary for a vibrant democracy. Don’t get me wrong, I’m as enamored of the chattering classes as anyone here – or I wouldn’t be here but lets not pretend either side of this type of argument is very informative or helpful.
I do think Bill Clinton should be left alone. But let’s be real about what is going on here. Maximum drama for maximum profit. The pundits will try to draw Clinton out and wait until he does, then try to get him to put his foot in his mouth and be delighted when he does.
Rinse, repeat. It is probably worse than unhelpful it is harmful.
I understand to a degree wanting to know the people in power- understand their character, etc. but this building up and tearing down is out of hand. I wish we could have left the high-school antics in high-school. It is certainly human nature but when we understand our nature we can change- if we want to.
In other news, Broadsheet had a fabulous article “The next female presidential contender”
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/06/27/beyond_hillary/index.html
It is not salacious or dramatic but based on scientific research and writing about how we get more women in elected office and on the executive office track. Of course since it is basically about reasonable, thoughtful and pragmatic approaches to a problem and doesn’t vilify anyone it only has nine comments (two of them mine praising the article.)
-
OT but I meant to bold that link
[Read the article: Leave Bill Clinton alone!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So I'm going to promote this article one more time:
In other news, Broadsheet had a fabulous article “The next female presidential contender”
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/06/27/beyond_hillary/index.html
I know a lot of people here care about and have discussed the topics of sexism and feminism in the campaign frequently. I hope you'll check out the article. When women running for the presidency becomes common place we'll have overcome a lot of the problems of this campaign.
-
Love how these repugs are all for states rights
[Read the article: A lesson in how not to pick your co-sponsors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]until they are not.
Thanks for the laughs though- a sensatorial whose who of hypocrisy.
-
That was supposed to be
[Read the article: A lesson in how not to pick your co-sponsors]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Senatorial but I think I melded it with sensational - accidentally coining a fab new phrase sensatorial!
*in a low sexy perfume ad voice*
sensatorial... light up the Hart Office building... be the envy of the congress... sensatorial
-
Cheers JTGulls
[Read the article: The next female presidential contender]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll check those documentaries out.
-
lynnromaine & kayindc
[Read the article: Leave Bill Clinton alone!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lynn although California went for Hillary I'm pretty sure San Francisco went overwhelmingly for Obama. I was looking for regional numbers but I can't find them ....but that is what I recall.
I think you both (and all other feminists) would enjoy this article from Broadsheet earlier today- it is a very practical about getting women into higher office.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/06/27/beyond_hillary/index.html
I hope Joan doesn't mind me shamelessly promoting another blog from salon in her pages ... it is a really important topic and I think she would agree.