Letters to the Editor
Dana Runs
Published Letters: 161 Editor's Choice: 15
-
Moira Kelly, you go, girl!
[Read the article: The Democratic duel of the race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Finally! Someone gave voice to what I've been feeling for some time.
Imagine for a moment that Dodd had said: "We all know that Obama can't get elected. People may say that they'd vote for a black man for president, but when push comes to shove, they'll never for for him. We need to nominate someone who can win."
Yes, the attacks against Senator Clinton are bigoted and sexist, and I am constantly infuriated and amazed that "people" (i.e., mostly men, and that means all the MSM) don't see it for what it is. Thank you Moira Kelly for saying it out loud!
You can count me among those who weren't terribly enchanted with Senator Clinton at first, but the relentless sexist attacks have inspired me to take a second look at her, and I like what I see. And whether you like her or not, she proved last night that she has enough big, pendulous balls to be president.
-
Not the war?
[Read the article: When results don't matter]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When I saw the headline and started to read the Bush quotes, I thought for sure this entry was going to be about holding Bush's invasion of Iraq to his own "results" standard.
So sad that a good snark was wasted on the likes of Karen Who's?
-
@ Reality-Based Liberal
[Read the article: The Democratic duel of the race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, you and I seem to be at odds now and then, even though I suspect we agree far more than we disagree. One thing I do appreciate about you is that you do tend to stick to issues, rather than get suckered by all the distractions, caricatures, straw men, red herrings and personality "issues" with which we are constantly being barbarded.
I'm a solid progressive. But I've noticed that those who post on Salon tend to be farther left than mainstream progressives. Where Senator Clinton is concerned, you seem to side with the farther left group. I respect it, and good luck to you in the primaries.
-
"Accidental?"
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, Tim, really. And you're usually so level-headed.
Perhaps it's hard for penis-wearers to see, but much of what passes for "criciticism" of Senator Clinton is sexist attacks. You know, exactly the kind of thing that would put the country in an uproar if they were said about blacks, et al.
No, it's not "accidental." There is a real subtext of sexism, and there is a real backlash beginning among female voters. We may disagree with her among ourselves, but when one of our own is subjected to sexist framing by those in our own party, we rally 'round.
In fact, your attempt to frame this as a phony phenomenon and mere campaign slight-of-hand victimhood is the calcualted, cynical and "not accidental" insincerity. Please put your level head back on. This one doesn't inspire great cofidence in you.
-
And Actually...
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...I thought Clinton really did not only hold her own among the Big Boys, but withstood the "pile on" admirably. She's one tough woman, with big, pendulous balls, and I admire that about her! No shrinking violet, she showed she has what it takes to go toe-to-toe with the best of the. And make no mistake, the Democratic field is an impressive one this year. (To see, just compare them to the gang of losers on the Repooplican side.) For a woman to stand head and shoulders above the very substantial male power all around her says a lot about her ability and her character.
It was a "pile on." They were "men." She is a "woman." And she acquitted herself admirably. And the meme that she "stumbled" is just a bunch of hooey. She was at least as strong as any of the men there. The good thing about all this is that people are trying to frame it as a phony observation. A dozen years ago, the men would have been castigated resoundingly for ganging up against the poor, fragile, vulneralbe little woman. Remember? That's why we couldn't have a woman president. She'd be too weak. She'd cry. She'd cave when the big, bad, evil world leaders bared their teeth at her. It says a lot about us that political hacks with an anti-Hillary agenda are cynical enough to phony this up as just political bull.
Clinton is the real thing, folks.
-
On Hillary and Hawks
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One of the few substantive objections I hear about Senator Clinton is that she is too hawkish. I think that will be a huge asset in the general election.
First, that will inspire a lot of crossover votes. Second, it takes the Repooplicans' strongest issue away from them.
But must importantly, Hillary's hawkishness will be an effective counter to the oh-so-predictable October "surprise." Is there anyone who can't see it coming? Just before the general election, we will have a terrible crisis with Iran. We will discover how truly fiendish and dangerous they are through some imminent threat that suddenly materializes (read: is manufactured). What they won't be able to do is paint Hillary as soft on terror or national defense. She will look (and be) at least as formidable as the Repooplican nominee.
And you've drunk the Kool-Aid and are a lost cause if you truly believe that Hillary Clinton will continue the imbicilic policies of the neocons. If that's the case, there's no sense even talking to you. But to the rest of the population, Hillary's hawkishness will be a huge, huge asset.