Letters to the Editor
calgodot
Published Letters: 257 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Reverse Sexism
[Read the article: The dude vote]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We've all heard a lot about "reverse sexism" or "reverse discrimination." If you want a textbook example of it, read this article.
Early in this campaign cycle, a number of pundits and citizens expressed the idea that many women would vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. Anyone expressing that idea was called a sexist and accused of presuming women do not think about issues. Here we go again, only this time the sexism is wearing drag.
Men will vote for McCain over Hillary simply because he's got the same sex organs (i.e. men do not think). Men do not care about issues (i.e. men do not think). Men who are ideologically aligned with Clinton will vote for McCain simply to keep a woman out of the White House (i.e. men do not think).
Of course the facile article misses one thing about us dudes: we brag, full of male bluster, that we will do things which, faced with the actual choice, we will not.
Many of us who emphatically will not vote for the deceitful, Bush-enabling, anti-Constitution Hillary Clinton are so angered by the obvious presumption of so many that she somehow deserves the nomination - based on her "experience," which again amounts wholly to enabling the current regime - that we sometimes say, "I'll vote for John McCain before I vote for Hillary Clinton."
In reality, should Hillary manage to receive the nomination and shut-out the inspiring Barack Obama, we probably won't vote for John McCain. We just won't vote.
And of course, that's what Hillary's supporters really want. Witness (in this week alone) her unflinching turn toward negative campaigning, her dive into the gutter, her wholesale embrace of the politics of division.
For Hillary Clinton and her people, you are either with them or against them. And if you're against them, well... you must be a stupid sexist pig, or just a Hillary hater.
Now - where have we all heard that before?
-
The Most At Stake = The Most To Lose
[Read the article: A non-paranoid's guide to superdelegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The logic behind the existence of superdelegates is that if someone has to step in to resolve a deadlock, it probably should be those with the most stake in the future of the party.
Wouldn't that be voters?
Superdelegates will keep their power and influence whether they vote with or against the wishes of a majority of Democratic primary voters. Anyone who buys Shapiro's bullshit need only take a look at the rate of re-election which incumbents enjoy. Considering that some superdelegates are not elected officials, and therefore have nothing to fear or lose, and that elected officials only have about a 5% chance of not being re-elected, well... it's easy to see that superdelegates have little or nothing to lose - and therefore little or nothing at stake.
It's the voters who will lose, the voters who will be disenfranchised. It's Democratic voters who have the most at stake in the future of the party. It is the voters who will lose should the superdelegates elect to ignore their wishes.
And ultimately, the entire nation will lose, as it will be forced to choose between two candidates that no one really wanted in the first place.
Welcome to the Democratic Party version of Florida 2000.
-
The Wisdom of Uncle Kurt
[Read the article: Scott Bateman: Oh boy! It's Ralph Nader!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president. -- Kurt Vonnegut
-
Anonymity is for Cheap Cowards
[Read the article: Anonymous no more]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Real cowards make up a fake name.
Bravo, Salon. A wise policy decision.
-
Ethos Bared...
[Read the article: The myth of "rape hype"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...and math challenged, it seems.
-
True Respect for the Flag
[Read the article: Flag pins are for losers -- literally]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Mr. Obama is showing true respect for the flag. According to the traditional etiquette surrounding the U.S. flag, the flag "should not be embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed on such articles as cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins, boxes, or anything intended to be discarded after temporary use."
Further, "The flag should not be used as part of a costume or athletic uniform, except that a flag patch may be used on the uniform of military personnel, fireman, policeman and members of patriotic organizations."
Those of the proper age will recall what a controversial thing it was for Abbie Hoffman to wear the flag as a shirt. These days we've got flag hats, flag shorts, flag t-shirts, flag bikinis, flag blankets, flag towels... just about anything you can think of had the flag "embroidered, printed or otherwise impressed" on it during the days following 9/11.
That was when all of America went flag crazy, probably even some of the people here expressing contempt for the criticism of Obama. Plastic flags flew 24/7 from the antennae of many (if not most) automobiles; within weeks these plastic flags were tattered and dirty. Flags flew from porches after sunset, a violation of the most basic flag etiquette. At the time I thought both these examples demonstrated the rather lazy patriotism of most Americans: they'll fly the flag for the attention, but fail to care for it properly.
-
What's Clear
[Read the article: The "Rezko" game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What is 100% crystal-clear is that Hillary Clinton will sabotage anyone who gets in the way of her self-perceived holy destiny to become the first woman President. Her followers, like most zealots, are blind to her chicanery and will cheer her on as she sacrifices the country to her own selfish interests.
Clinton can't beat McCain and she knows it, but damned if she'll lose to Obama. She can't even content herself with the likelihood of attaining a top leadership role in the Senate. No: she must have the White House, and has no compunction about doing or saying anything to get there.
Some people seem to admire that. But then, some people admire George W. Bush. There is no accounting for the judgment of fools.