Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
jpetty
Published Letters: 141 Editor's Choice: 2
Except for Charles Rangel, who served in Korea, few Democratic leaders have military experience, so their rhetoric isn't likely to convince this skeptical and apprehensive electorate.
This is absolutely false, and she ought to know better. Many top Democrats have served in the military. It is precisely the AWOL Bush's neo-cons who avoided military service.
Everybody knows this. For Paglia to blow this calls her every other sweeping assertion into question.
What planet is she on? Pelosi more accomplished than Hillary? A laughable assertion.
Thanks
Bill Clinton was right.
Hillary Clinton has arguably done as much for women as anyone else, and justly ranks as one of the foremost feminists of the 20th century. Her speech in China alone has been recognized as giving hope for better conditions to millions of women around the globe.
Like John Edwards is a great feminist, after, by clear implication, trashing Hillary for (maybe) shedding a tear.
Please.
who said:
"You think perhaps this is a cheap shot, that I have searched her work and caught Ms. Paglia in a rare moment of sweeping generalization, easy to make fun of? "Au contraire", as we always say in Amarillo; the sweeping generalization is her signature. In fact, her work consists of damn little else. She is the queen of the categorical statement."
Clymer is looking for an out.
What Hillary said is obviously correct. It takes a committed president to move along the actual legislation that is generated from an inspired political movement.
Please, whatever else may be said of the Clintons, their committment to the civil rights movement has never been questioned.
Fact is: Hillary Clinton is one of the most popular politicians in the United States. Her "high negatives" are really not much higher than the rest of the Democratic candidates. They're only four points higher than Obama's, for example.
This is the time with the "Purists" come out of the woodwork, tell us they're Democrats, and then self-righteously proclaim that no one in the Democratic field is "pure" enough--except for their choice, which is Hart, or Bradley, (or Nader), and now Obama.
Then, when they lose, they proclaim a pox on the Democratic Party (which they never thought much of anyway), and sit out the election, giving us first Richard Nixon, then George W. Bush.
Like these folks are political geniuses.
In 1968, the progressives sat at home because Humphrey wasn't "pure" enough for them--no difference between him and Nixon, they said. Nixon got elected. In 2000, they voted for Nader--no difference between Bush and Gore--and Bush got elected.
The problem is that they're just too "pure" for the Democratic Party, so much more knowledgeable and devoted to "the people" than us party regulars, who, though we were progressives before most of them were born, are tainted with something or other.
So they come in in election years, proclaim their guy the "hope of all humanity," and then slink off when their guy loses, cursing under their breath, then either not-voting or voting for Nader, and we don't see them again until the next cycle when they do it all over again.
To paraphrase Barry Goldwater, "Grow up, progressives!"
Obama criticizes Democrats, but not Republicans--ever notice that? His proposals--if you can find them--are to the right of both Hillary and Edwards. He likes Reagan--read his book: page 31. He plays the race card--Oprah in South Carolina--and manages to pin it on the Clintons. And if anybody dares to call him on any of it, they're being "negative" and "divisive." Please, some of us have both feet on the ground even in the face of Obama's electrifying awesomeness.
I loved it when Bill lit into the CNN reporter. The traditional media, including the bloggers, rolled their eyes and got faint, but what he said was exactly right on.
Why are Kos, Josh, HuffPost, and Salon all echoing the traditional media? I thought bloggers were supposed to be different. Guess not.
Here's a question for you: If Obama gets the nomination, will the Democratic Party have a candidate?
TPM, Kos, and HuffPost are all pretty pro-Obama. I'd say that, over-all, Salon has done a better job of playing it straight. Sure, Grieve is pro-Obama, but Joan seems pro-Hillary to me, so it balances out.
I do agree with the above poster that the Obama fans are ultra-sensitive to any suggestion that their leader is anything less than Lincoln.
I like the Kennedys and the Clintons. I don't believe the right-wing lies about either of them. JFK and Bill Clinton were the best presidents of my life time.
Political realities being what they are, Ted's endorsement marginally helps Obama in the primaries, but probably hurts him in the general.
There have been many "beauty contest" primaries in the past, and the winner of them was usually designated a "winner."
Now, in 2008, this "beauty contest" primary is described as "meaningless."
But only if Hillary wins it.
The Democratic candidate won't break 40% there in the fall--not even Saint Obama.
Honestly, I do not understand the hostility people have toward Hillary, other than that people have been buying into--at some level--the right-wing propaganda over the years, which has been proven, time and time again, to be false.
Joan,
I thought that your piece was excellent--good reporting, and fair to both sides.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
