Letters to the Editor
sajwan
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Kate sees the light
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It looks like we always return to the sad fact that sexism and attacks on women, for whatever Rorschach test sort of reason, are just fine, but every other group is off limits.
-- ModerationInAll
Yes, I agree. That is the elephant in the room that everyone handily ignores. Gender inequality has just as long a way to go as racial inequality in terms of economic opportunities, maybe longer.
As far as Kate, she was just sticking up for the right of women to freely choose the best candidate the way white protestant men have been electing white non-protestant males only based on merits for the last... umm, never mind.
What I think she meant was that a feminist not supporting a qualified women to the highest position in the land proves that women are equal and empowered to such a degree that they no longer need power and no longer need feminists and no longer need Kate and... ahhhh, wait.
What I think she really meant was that every feminist knows that a woman in the White House would not be as good in understanding and addressing womens issues as a man would. Kate wants a man like Obama to take care of the women folk. Kate has seen the light.
-
In a nutshell
[Read the article: Which Democrat can beat McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I understand: Hillary is smart, well informed, and qualified for the job. I also understand that she will never get the chance to prove it. Let's be honest, admit that it's a new day, and embrace the most exciting candidate in over a generation. It's gotta be Barack. --
Thats it in a nutshell. Smarts, knowledge, and qualifications vs "excitement".
-
Was that "ironious" or "maloderous"?
[Read the article: How will it all end?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Politics are about what?
I wonder about the concern over super-delegates without equal concern over caucuses. They are what they are, political machinery. Obama seems to have the advantage in the caucus vs popular vote states, Hillary in getting commitments (probably, maybe, could be, not binding) from super-delegates. Caucuses are about the politically connected or political aspirants, it is not a populist voting mechanism. Super delegates I guess can have a similar outcome in that theoretically, they could short-circuit the popular vote in the end.
Exit polls show:
Hillory is favored by
- poor
- whites (men and women, but especially women)
- Latinos
- Asian
Obama is favored by
- youth
- blacks
- wealthier
- higher educated
Draw your own conclusions, I can't from that mix. But I do find it annoying that Obama denies that he dominates in the black demographic. Why is he ducking this? I would think he would be proud. Never mind, I understand "Mr. lifting the country from it's dark night of the soul" is just playing politics.
And puuuleeeze, Obama cannot garner a simple majority in Democratic national polls. How about postponing the coronation until he at least does that. The Most recent National Polling shows Clinton ahead by 2 to 8 points.
...for some reason I thought 18 - 35 year olds were adults……..I suppose us “kids” should sit out the political process, as my parent’s generation has done such a bang up job.
Maybe if we are lucky you guys might even leave us some social security money......ah, who am I kidding? we are never going to see any. -- jamiso
What a fukkin magic number - under 35 and you are not responsible for anything that has occured in the last 15 years, over 36 and it's all your fault. Tremendous maturity there. Let me show my maturity - up yours. Also fukkin stop depending on the RNC talking points (aka social security is dead), maybe the "yes we can" generation can come up with some original talking points.
The difference is: Hillary and Obama both made speeches making judgement calls. Obama's judgement was right, Hillary's judgement was wrong. -- Person
I made a judgement call in the super bowl and I was right. I am going right down to NY and applying for the Giants coaching job.
Notorious WES says:"Obama has won a bunch of mickey mouse caucuses representing just a tiny percentage of the electorate."
And I say: Denial....not just a river in Egypt. -- Xrandadu Hutman
WES states an opinion based on facts (caucuses do represent a tiny percentage of the electorate, caucuses do not vote in the general election, and WES is reasonable in thinking that micky mouse), Hutman denies it, then accuses WES of denial. No matter how many time Obama votes in support of the War, Obamites go into denial and then accuse Clinton supporters of going into denial.
We do indeed live in "ironious" times.
And maloderous.
-
Simple Issue
[Read the article: Paul Krugman criticizes Obama supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have a very simple issue with Obama.
I see him and I see a liberal version of a charismatic Reagan. I see him and I see the “I'm the decider, I’m the one with principles, and so don't need to know crap" liberal version of Bush.
In summary both Reagan and Bush were idiots at everything except getting elected. Doesn't anybody remember one of the reasons Bush was such a strong candidate; he gave great political rally speeches and people FELT GOOD after he gave a speech. He was the “UNITER” too, remember? Remember the press giving Bush a pass on all the stupid policy things he would say because he was a "regular and principled guy"?. Come on, say you remember – it was not that long ago. I see similarities in Bushs campaign and Obamas - little substance but excellent politicking.
I would like a lot more substance from Obama. But regardless, I would prefer a liberal in the White House vs. a conservative, but not wild about having to choose someone who ends up being an empty suit.