Letters to the Editor
maniondl
Published Letters: 52 Editor's Choice: 1
-
But does he *really* love this country?
[Read the article: Finding Obama guilty of insufficient devotion to Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Question: Finding Obama guilty of insufficient devotion to Israel: Has there ever been another country besides Israel to which American politicians are required to vow absolute allegiance?
Answer: Yes. The country is: the US of A.
The McCain attack will be on grounds of patriotism and depth of devotion. Sure, maybe Obama says he loves his country (and Israel), but does he really love it? Does he love America like McWarHero does? Does he love Israel like Joe Lieberman loves Israel?
And all McCain has to do is quote Rambo III and reduce our mideast foreign policy to "I'm [Hamas'] worst nightmare," and pimp out Boehner and Lieberman to twist the Hamas "endorsement" of Obama. Where's the requisite grilling of McCain's middle east policy in our fair and balanced coverage? I'm sure the press is dying to cover the nuances of Israel's statehood, but the American public isn't interested. Riiiight. That's why the minority opinion on Israel directs the coverage. The press are simply the helpless lemmings of a consumer news culture.
And BTW, McCain is plagiarising Giuliani's oh-so-successful Iowa radio and flyer ad against MoveOn.org: "Why is MoveOn.org attacking Rudy Guiliani? Because I'm their worst nightmare." Link, as always, in sig.
-
Israel, anti-Semitism, academic freedom, security, politics
[Read the article: Israel imposes a 10-year ban on American critic of Israeli policies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's been clear that our Bush administration has strong-armed the freedoms of association, travel, and expression when it comes to reasoned dissent--academics are no exception to this policy, and clearly Israel has mirrored our Homeland security in this case.
I think there are too few safe, public "spaces" for discussing Israeli policies and American policies with regard to Israel. Look at h_lance's prescient comment about how this thread would devolve as an example, or--as Glenn pointed out--the embarassing brouhaha over Juan Cole's blog as a reason to deny him tenure (or was it for his political views themselves? Tenure review commitees never reveal their thinking, unfortunately).
Why is it that we can be starting a discussion on race and gender politics with the Obama-Clinton primary (however flawed a discussion it is), while criticsm of US/Israeli policies are verboten? I certainly disagree with much that Cole has said, but the views expressed deserve some public debate, if only to discredit some of them. The Bush Doctrine has created such strange political bedfellows as Lieberman and Hagee, yet higher-profile traditional media outlets are silent on the political forces that produce positions that create such odd alliances.
While I think the complexity of Middle Eastern politics is a barrier to some, I'll let Juan Cole state my thoughts here:
Powerful economic and political forces in American society would like to monopolize the discourse on these matters for the sake of their own interests, which may not be the same as the interests of those of us in the general public. Obviously, such forces will attempt to smear and marginalize those with whom they disagree.
Link to the Juan Cole's Chronicle of Higher Ed article(s)about his tenure refusal at Yale are in my sig.
-
Assassination Vacation
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](Apologies to Sarah Vowell for stealing her wonderful book title--hope she gets some hits on Amazon.com from curious commenters!)
Joan, I respectfully disagree with your post.
Pro-Obama does not equal Hillary-hate
-------------------------------------
Let's start with the first sentence: The world is divided between people who consider Bill and Hillary Clinton monsters, and people who don't. One does not have to hate Hillary and Bill to support Barack. With that kind of overly broad, depressive language, it seems as though you are inviting folks to slap you around here in the letters column.
I am sorry that your chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, has lost and that the Hillary 08 campaign has damaged their twined legacies. But not everyone that supports Obama thinks he walks on water and that Clinton is a monster.
Only an "unfortunate reference"?
--------------------------------
I agree with you that Olbermann's special comment was a bit over the top (aren't they all?), but I understand the anger at the Clinton campaign. Weren't Keith's points about her campaign mis-steps accurate, if amped-up? Even beyond the taboo use of the word "assassination," her lack of apology to the Obama camp was classless. Mike Huckabee made a stupid remark about Obama ducking a shot at the NRA convention and gave a sincere-sounding, abject apology at every opportunity. Yet, there was no apology to Obama from Clinton but an excuse that the Kennedies were on her mind (when in fact she had brought up RFK back in March of this year). How is it that Huckabee, a player on the other "team," comes across as more empathetic to those injured by his thoughtlessness than does Clinton, a fellow Democrat?
Other reasons the remarks produced anger at Clinton (not necessarily some pre-determined "Hillary-hate" in search of justification)
----------------------------------------------------------
Her rationale for staying in the race is not publically presented most of the time as a pro-Hillary argument; it is instead a "lightening-may-strike-Obama" approach, and a disrespectful approach to Obama's accomplishments in fundraising and organization--her stance has often been that his supporters are delusional and blinded by a cult-of-personality. She has made many comments that finally culminated in the assisintation remark, which crystallized her approach to Obama as a nasty fly-in-her-annoitment, an unworthy and illigimate candidacy that requires quick dispatching. Do I think she wishes he were assassinated? No, of course not. The comments, however, betray a lack of respect for Obama supporters, for the historical nature of the Obama candidacy, and the real dangers facing his run.
Lastly, a question to the Clinton campaign, its supporters, and to you, Joan
-----------------
There is a sense among Democrats that there are many dangers to Obama, from the right-wing noise machine to the death threats. As a strong representative of the Democratic party, why is Clinton pursuing a losing battle instead of putting her forces behind a candidate that needs all of the help he can get? Joan, will you be running articles that are critical of Obama while he is in mid-fight with McCain?