Letters to the Editor
surprised
Published Letters: 146 Editor's Choice: 20
-
The two questions
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After 477 or so letters, I'm sure someone's already raised this point, so apologies first. Anyway, here's my point:
The question: "Is the country ready for a black or woman president?" is not the same question as: "Are you ready for a black or woman president?"
My guess is that respondents would be likely to say yes to the latter -- even hell yes -- but might tend to overestimate their fellow Americans' sexism and/or racism when they give negative responses to the former. The second question asks for respondents' own personal views; the first question asks them to guess about their fellow Americans' views.
-
@SeniorMoment and others
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Re your statement: "I can understand the spouse of a former President getting elected in a developing country with a limited number of world aware college graduates, but not in the United States which is full of intelligent, outgoing women leaders including Democratic governors like Washington's Chris Gregoire and its Senators Marie Cantwell and Patty Murray."
That's well put (though I think it's Maria Cantwell). In fact, if you look at the five Pacific states, three have women governors (Washington, Alaska, Hawaii) and five of the 10 U.S. senators are women.
I'm as stong a feminist as anyone, I think, and I'd love to have a woman president. But this idea that the ONLY woman who has any possible shot at being president is Hillary Clinton because she somehow gets credit for being co-president during her husband's adminstrations, that there are no other women anywhere on the scene who are proving themselves as capable and even inspiring leaders strikes me as pretty paternalistic (pun not intended).
Many of us live in states where women are governors and/or U.S. senators and/or legislative leaders and/or big-city mayors -- all without the benefit of succeeding spouses in those jobs. Some of these elected officials who are women are good, some not so much, just like their male counterparts. All in all, it seems like voters have little problem electing candidates who happen to be women. Really, I think we're past the point when we need to make a big huge deal about a candidate's gender.
-
lousy campaign maybe = can't govern
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary has many fine qualities. Her positions on many issues are quite good and well-thought-out. She has accomplished much in her life. She is, in my opinion, a very capable senator.
And it is very true that, as she has campaigned, she has had to contend with society's sexism and an unfriendly and easily distracted MSM.
But. . .you can't get away from the fact that her campaign has been terrible. From here, it seems a soap opera of dysfunction. There are constant re-branding attempts and constant changes in course and changes in managers -- people who are one day touted as gurus and the next day reviled as out-of-touch losers. People in the campaign have been spending so much time fussin' and fightin' and complaining that it seems there's been a complete failure to deliver a consistent and clear message persuasive enough to convert critics, something you need to get elected and, more importantly, to govern effectively after the election. (As for the sexism, yes, it's terrible, yadda yadda, but other female candidates have overcome. And sexism is not going to disappear after Election Day, so you'd better prove before then that you're bigger than it.)
The (mis)management of her campaign does not bode well for an effective or well-run Hillary administration, should she somehow be elected in November.
-
Should time as First Lady really be considered experience?
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sure, Hillary faces sexism, just like Obama faces racism. All candidates face particular challenges.
If you can't overcome those challenges on the campaign trail, you sure are unlikely to overcome them while serving in office.
But here's something that I don't think has been sufficiently considered: Hillary's claim to experience derives from her status as a presidential spouse. I think, at the heart of it, that is what causes many voters to cringe. It's not the idea of a woman in power that's causing heartburn -- voters are happy to elect women -- but the idea of someone inheriting power or absorbing it or whatever through marriage.
Hillary is not an experienced politician or public servant in the manner of, say, Diane Feinstein, Christine Gregoire, Linda Lingle, Kay Bailey Hutchinson or the oft-cited Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir. Perhaps if Hillary had real experience of bearing her own direct responsibility for running government she wouldn't have run such an atrocious campaign.
Why is status as a First Lady seriously considered experience? Should Laura Bush be held responsible for our nation's Iraq debacle? Why, in fact, do we even have such an anachronism as a "First Lady"? Of course, that's another discussion. . .
-
Never take sides against the Family!
[Read the article: Hillary's slick willies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In response to the point about royalism: What's the deal with the Clintonistas being so big on personal loyalty? What is this, a presidential election in a democracy or a Mafia war? The loyalty obsessions seems kind of creepy.
Note to James Carville: Public servants (like Bill Richardson) are supposed to be loyal to the public, not to the politicians who appoint them.
-
Someone's getting his Kenyans confused
[Read the article: Hillary's slick willies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mwai Kabaki is president of Kenya, albeit the disputed president because it is widely believed that his re-election was rigged. Odinga is the opposition leader.
The tribal violence that broke out after the election was shocking and sickening, but it is highly illogical to blame Barack Obama for any of it.
On another subject, I have a request for Camille, if she's still reading this far down the letters post: What about an examination of the position of First Lady? Is it time to ditch it? Seems like a very old-fashioned post, kind of like a "Mrs. America" position.