Letters to the Editor
Lindy from L.A.
Published Letters: 63 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Xrandadu
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't forget the Iraq vet with the latest swift boat group who introduced John McCain at an event yesterday by saying: "The Democrats have their Tiger Woods but we've got John McCain!"
And personally, I think the "Barack Obama wouldn't be where he is if he were a white man or a white woman" argument is racist and wrong-headed. Wrong-headed because, if you take a "generic" example of any group -- white male, black male, white woman, black woman -- they tend to be average in any number of respects. Well, you put an average person up against the enormously gifted Barack Obama and yeah, they wouldn't be doing as well. So it's a lame argument to begin with -- but one that gets a hearing because of racism. Unintentionally or otherwise, it plays into racial stereotypes. People who might be able to figure out what I wrote above, about putting Barack Obama up against some unidentified "average" person, don't get that far because they stop at the "oh he's doing better because he's black. It's an affirmative action thing."
All the stuff about the empty suit, he gives a good speech but that's it, etc. etc. -- it's not explicitly racist, of course, but it finds a more receptive audience than it would otherwise, IMO, because of racism. People are more willing to believe Obama is a smooth-talking huckster because of racism.
So make that video, Xrandadu!
-
Blinders?
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quote: "I greatly saddens me to see the posters here say that they don't see the sexism, or worse that they do see it but it somehow doesn't count because of who Hillary is."
*sigh*
I guess the knack for ignoring what nearly everyone here is actually saying isn't limited to Joan.
-
How Do You Figure?
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quote: "I think women in tis country have not even acknowledged the suffering and oppression we have faced in our recent history and continue to experience in our culture."
How do you figure? Because we acknowledge racism exists in our culture too?
-
Racist to step on Obama's message?
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quote: "Hillary's racism is expressed every time she. ..
has stated in debates (and I heard this consistently from her) that this race is historic in because no matter what, we will have "change" because the Democrats are being offered a choice between a woman and an African-American. She thus defines "change" on racial and gender terms."
Like many Obama supporters (and others as well), I've become increasingly disgusted by Hillary Clinton's tactics. But I completely disagree that "stepping on the black candidate's message" is a racist thing to do, even if his message is a post-racial one.
-
Beer Frame!
[Read the article: Spare votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like it that Obama bowled -- and that he kept bowling even after it must've been obvious he wasn't going to be a "natural." I admire anyone that comfortable and confident in himself.
-
<yawn>
[Read the article: Obama and the white working class]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was a sloppy comment. There's nothing to debate. Which is why we end up talking about what a shill you've become for Hillary.
If it weren't for Glenn Greenwald, there'd be nothing for me here anymore.
-
Am I an Obama Boy?
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is this a serious article? I'm a 57, white, divorced mother of two, a lifelong Democrat, and I've supported Obama since the outset. Am I an "Obama boy"?
-
The Slipped-In Premise That Obama Was Pandering
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan, I don't accept your premise that Obama was pandering to wealthy voters.
If you listen to him, he's clearly not pandering at all. He's answering a question from someone who is apparently on his way to Pennsylvania to solicit voters and who wants some advice. Exactly what purpose would it serve to "pander"? The guy asked a thoughtful question, and Obama was giving him a thoughtful answer.
I've also read in various places how the audience laughed at the small town voters of Pennsylvania. But, again, if you listen, the audience is laughing at self-deprecating humor from Obama. As he does from time to time and has since the beginning of this campaign, he referred to himself as "a black guy named Barack Obama," by way of explaining (in part) difficulties he has experienced in getting people to warm up to his candidacy. It was obviously intended to get a laugh, and the audience obliged him and laughed.
I gotta wonder, Joan: Whence this never-ending need to get a gratuitous dig in at Obama? Sure, you've got it relatively under wraps here, and in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't even really matter. But it just rings so false.
That's what strikes me: Not when criticism rings true. But when it rings false. And it always makes me wonder what the heck is really going on.
-
Who Was First?
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quote: "But never in my wildest dreams did I think you could mangle this sequence of intentionally silly, disconnected images into an argument about what kind of weapon you'd use to shoot ducks. As far as I know, Walsh is the first to try."
John McCain has made the same point. Not sure who made it first.
But, has Joan Walsh joined Hillary Clinton in working for John McCain?
-
How We View/Feel Insults: Human Nature
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Quote: "After reading Carol's first question in this thread: I think it's a fair question, to ask why I'm more disturbed by Obama's more vicious supporters than Clinton's. I'll give it some more thought."
There's a very simple answer: human nature. We always feel more acutely the flames and insults that are directed toward ourselves and those we agree with as opposed to the flames and insults that are directed toward those we disagree with. The latter we observe as if through the wrong end of a telescope. The former come at us head-on like a runaway train.
And like I said: it's just human nature. It was true before this election, and it'll be true after.