Letters to the Editor
Dana Runs
Published Letters: 148 Editor's Choice: 14
-
Is Obama the dissembler that his supporters accuse Clinton of?
[Read the article: Obama goes for the capillaries]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In that same interview, Obama was asked whether or not gay marriage was a "separate but equal" issue akin to that faced by blacks. And Obama dissembled and refused to answer the question. He went on and on about how much he loves gay people (probably even has gay friends!), and how he is for civil unions. But he didn't address with a straightforward answer whether this "separate but equal" doctrine he supports is akin to that deemed unlawful when it comes to race, and if not, then how it differs from that situation.
To me, a gay woman, he comes off as a dissembler, not taking a principled stand but saying what he thinks will get him the most votes, and a hypocrite. It was a very good question. It deserved a yes or no answer, and a clear explanation.
MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about the issue of gay marriage. John Lewis, who you called a living saint, said this: “I’ve heard reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distortions and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I’ve known in racism and in bigotry.
“Some say let’s choose another route and give gay folks some legal rights, but call it something other than marriage. We’ve been down that road before in this country. Separate is not equal. The rights of liberty and happiness belong to each of us and on the same terms without regard to either skin color or sexual orientation.” You agree?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, here’s what I believe. John Lewis is—his sentiments are exactly right that we have to provide equal rights for gays and lesbians in this country, and I have consistently fought for that. I was a co-sponsor of the human rights ordinance in Illinois that eliminated discrimination on the job, in housing and other areas for gays and lesbians in Illinois. I have championed every single piece of legislation that would expand the same rights to gays and lesbians. I have not said that I was a supporter of gay marriage, but I am a strong supporter of civil unions, and I would, as president, make absolutely certain that all federal laws pertaining to married couples—benefits pertaining to married couples are conferred to people who—same sex couples who have civil unions as well.
That seems no better than Clinton, to me. So where's the Obama beef, huh?
-
@ JM Walker
[Read the article: Obama goes for the capillaries]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You don't have it quite right, I'm afraid. Hoping I don't hijack this discussion about Obama, but according to the federal courts...
[T]he newer Brown [v. Board of Education] doctrine of ‘separate cannot be equal’ must control here as well . . . the presence or absence of actual unequal treatment is immaterial, just as the existence of separate schools, regardless of equality or inequality of facilities and standards, denies to citizens the equal protection of the laws.
There are literally thousands of federal cases holding similarly. In fact, the burden is on those trying to distinguish the equality of separateness, and it is telling that Obama has declined to do so.
Not that I have any problem with that; I understand that getting elected is sometimes a function of avoiding disapproval. But the meme by Obama supporters has been that he is better than Hillary because he is a straight shooter who isn't afraid to take principled stands, and doesn't modify his rhetoric to get elected. Well, I think the "Meet the Press" interview is proof positive that Obama is -- like all politicians -- exactly what his supporters decry in Clinton.
-
Owning her inner bitch
[Read the article: Clinton, McCain and the B-word]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Personally, the more I'm hearing about this stuff, the more I'm starting to think that Hillary just might be the bitch to run this country in 2009.
Oh, and has anyone noticed that this was an actual sexist attack on Hillary so obvious that even those who believe sexism is just a figment of the Clinton campaign imagination can't deny it? (But watch them explain it away...)
-
A quick trip through fantasyland.
[Read the article: "Radical groups"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wonder. Let's imagine a world where Dana Perino had to actually answer questions put to her. I would like to ask her, "So, you say we need to give the troops the time and opportunity to win the war in Iraq. Okay, that sounds fair. How long should we wait, a month, a year, five years, ten, fifty? At what point are we allowed to decide that it isn't working? Give us a date please."
If we had asked Bush or Cheney that question in 2003, and they had to answer it truthfully, I wonder what they would have said. I wonder if they would have said we should give them 4.5 years. I wonder what they would say today.
-
"Men wouldn't vote with the little head!?" and "Dowd's best investment."
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton: Better as a flight attendant?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dowd only hopes in her wildest dreams that Hillary gets elected. She made a career out of Clinton-bashing. Hillary as president would guarantee her a fruitful retirement.
As to this...
But I have a hard time believing men would not vote for Clinton because they wouldn't want to date her; that equates their political beliefs with their romantic taste.
...I only observe that people voted for Bush because they thought they would like to have a beer with him or because he seemed "strong." And I also observe that the majority of presidential votes cast by women since 1960 have been for the better looking man each time. Why in the world would we think men are above voting based on their romantic tastes? Sometimes I think everything men do is influenced by their interest in sex. :)
-
Dare I hope that Democrats in the Senate will grow a spine?
[Read the article: Doing the Iraq dance, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No. As a famous American leader once said: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me . . . fool me . . . we won't be fooled again.
Politics of hope? Oh, I don't think so.