Letters to the Editor
dog-walker
Published Letters: 81
-
@professor
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My dog would argue than Nixon was "sexier" than both Humphry and McGovern. Not as sexy as Kennedy or Johnson, but he didn't have to be, any more than Carter had to be sexier than Reagan to beat Ford.
It's always relative.
-
@HealThisNation
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Except, I would point out that being tough is not the same thing as being A tough.
-
@healthisnation
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, I didn't say it b.c. weeping just had, but I thought your post to AKA was excellent, laying out the problem clearly and convincingly.
But I think "These are tough tactics" cedes the frame. I would add to your argument that her tactics stem from weakness and are not tough but small. They become effective (that is, tough to deal with) only with media amplification and repetition.
Note that I'm NOT saying HRC doesn't have genuine toughness. She has stuck with what must have been at times an unusually excruciating marriage, for example. Some people will say that was opportunistic. I don't know if that's true or not, but whatever the motive, it had to be tough to do.
-
Yes, gracious, but lets give him credit for ambition, geuine ambition, too.
[Read the article: Obama gracious in N.C. victory]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lani Davis is on CNN right now! Not gracious. Maybe, um, bitter.
Woof!
I hate to see Hillary lose, but the tactics of her campagne?, may they burn, burn, burn.
-
@"The other thread": two things
[Read the article: The Brazile-Begala smackdown]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. Carol, I think you're confused. The new metric is that the THIRD comment on each post is actually the FIRST. Relax. You're in by a shoe in.
2. Joan, when you comment on the comments, it's more fun.
3. (Which is the new metric for 1)
4. (Which is the new metric for 2): I agree, the Donna/Paul flap was pretty riveting. I think they are both different versions of the real deal.
5. (As I said, and which should be obvious to anyone who loves this country, 5 is the new metric for 2): now I'll feed my four month old boy and then read the rest of the comments.
-
@late again & sigmund5 re silly post
[Read the article: The Brazile-Begala smackdown]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm behind on the thread, still responding to page 2:
This is an interesting and important subject because it doesn't just repeat the Clinton divide-the-electorate-and-conquer talking point, it challenges it. Right? Isn't that what Donna Brazile was doing?
-
@farallon
[Read the article: A split Democratic decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"If I hear one more of her supporters say on television that she is "ahead in the popular vote" I am going to destroy my TV."
This is painful to me as well. I've been trying to figure out exactly how and exactly why.
How: It feels like a sort of intense frustration. It feels a little like suffocation. It makes me want to scream.
Why: because of the madness of the Bush years? because it's a kind of "gas-lighting" and I grew up in a household where maintaining a false version of "reality" was a key aspect of crippling emotional abuse? because of the fear that the false reality will kill the true reality? (That is, that the HRC assertion that she is ahead in the popular vote will actually be if not believed -- for it is patently, inarguably untrue -- given the nod?) None of these satisfies.
Why?
There have always -- it seems -- been Clinton haters, and also Hillary haters. It always just seemed to me that they were mainly Republicans who despised their success. I've mostly dug the Clintons. But I just seethe at this bald-faced lying which competent adults sit by and seem to accept as in some measure valid. I've become a guilty-feeling Hillary hater. There are specific issues, such as the war vote, the "hard working whites" thing, the "as far as I know" incident, but I don't hate her for them. I disagree. I don't think they should be politically forgiven. Even her playing along with the Jeremiah Wright ridiculousness seemed to me just disqualifyingly wrong. But this constant strain of false assertion has inspired that painful experience of hatred.
Why?
-
@weeping... on pg. 16
[Read the article: How much will white racism hurt Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Weeping...,
Just wanted to express appreciation for this letter, where you make the point a couple of times about the option a white person has in America to opt out of the political conversation. (You make the point better than I can recap it, so I won't.) I think it's a really important idea that we should be spoken about more. In my experience, one of the most difficult (to bear) aspects of injustice is its invisibility to those who do not suffer it. The basic unfairness of HRC's abiIity (I seem to have just Iost the key that foIIow's "hijk" and precedes "mnop") to "pass" as you put it in WV whiIe Obama cannot had not occurred to me before reading your Ietter. It was invisibIe to me. And this is preciseIy an aspect of racism. And HRC deIiberateIy took advantage of it to wedge her way ahead in those states where she couId. And for those who argue that the CIinton's are not racist, okay, but HRC is cIearIy taking as much advantage of her "skin privaIedge" as she can.
What does it mean to take conscious advantage of racism in society even when one does not hoId racist views and wouId never support racist poIicies?
(Anyway, great point. IittIe Iight buIb moment for dog-waIker.)