Letters to the Editor
BadgerBlue
Published Letters: 193 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Very true Bernbart
[Read the article: Why Clinton voters say they won't support Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Much of that anger you pointed out is coming from that 2nd wave/generation group and an objective glance shows that it often harms the cause rather than advancing it due to that the anger often distorts critical objective reasoning. A good example would be the allegations repeatedly made against Obama by Geraldine Ferarro. She never could give any concrete examples of the very specific charges she was leveling directly at Obama in any of the many TV and radio appearances she made in the course of her never-ending rant. While it might have drawn some voters to Clinton and further galvanized those already in that corner, it repulsed many voters who were on the fence and not leaning towards one candidate or another. It wasn't like everyone who voted for Obama was an "Obamaton" or some Manson family type follower suffering from any cult-of-personality trance. They simply saw the foaming-at-the-mouth rants coming from a Clinton surrogate as a prime example encompassing everything they have come to despise about how divisive rhetoric and tactics have been allowed to overshadow if not completely trump what they feel are the real issues that need to be addressed in thier lives. And it also didn't help Clinton during that stretch either that the surrogate making the personal attacks happened to be Ferarro, the epitome of someone being chosen over others largely due to gender above all else.
One positive to take away from it is something Frank Rich pointed out in NYT recently. In spite of all the chatter and threats to sit out the election or worse, Obama has polled anywhere from a 13 to 19 point lead over McCain with women where Kerry finished with a lead of only 3 over Bush in '04. So there's at least evidence that this group of dead-enders that are so willing to throw it all away on symbolism isn't really the size that some might want people to believe. As for those that continue to equate Obama's "sweetie" remark and "Your likeable enough..." as ample reason to vote against him, they need to adequately defend voting for McCain, who smirked and giggled as another woman asked him at a campaign event "How do we beat the bitch" and once remarked that that the "The reason Chelsea Clinton is so ugly is because her mother/father is Janet Reno."
If any PUMA voting for McCain over Obama claims they are doing it in the name or cause of women, they are clearly unwilling to look at facts objectively or just flat-out lying to themselves and everybody else, because there's absolutely no doubt that McCain's actions and remarks are clearly much more insulting and demeaning than the remarks they continue to criticize Obama for . Where's the outrage over McCain's completely unacceptable behavior towards Clinton, her daughter, and women as a whole from those here in the letters thread that claim to be acting on some sort of principle of "avenging the sexism"? After this many letters, I would have thought that all these defenders of the women's movement and Clinton's alleged poor treatment would have pointed out McCain's obvious insults, history of 100% support for anti-choice judges and his lousy treatment of his first wife as clear red flags but hundreds of letters later, there isn't one. Probably because they aren't here to "defend" the cause of women against the "sexism" from Obama and the Democtaic Party, but because they are just the latest wave of board trolls and hacks trying to do McCain's dirty work for him.
-
Alex, just where was this "Log Cabin" meeting?
[Read the article: McCain had private meeting with head of gay group]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]By chance was it held in one of the restrooms in the Minneapolis airport? Oh that's right. Probably not a discreet enough location these days. Pretty soon, Sen. Craig will be claiming the real reason he got busted was that he was really having an "exploratory meeting" on behalf of strengthening this newfound coalition. I can picture him claiming it already..."I did it for unity! I did it for my party! I did it for McCain!"
-
"each donated $2300"
[Read the article: Clintons donate to Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That adds up to a cool $9200, which come Inauguration day will amount to about 1/2 of a tank of gas. Maybe the four of them will be forced to have to carpool together on the way past K-Street.
Alex, I suspect that this latest P.R. move by the two power couples was an attempt to motivate the big donors from both campaigns to make further "goodwill" gestures. Obama hoping that his heavy hitters will help retire Clinton's campaign debt with the possibility that her top givers will reciprocate and start giving some big dollars to his campaign in time for the strech run. Hey, stranger things have happened and at least instead these four squabbling with each other, they have done something that could qualify to a degree as "leading by example" at a time where the current situation requires precisely just that from the party's top officials.
While I doubt the four of them are making plans to book a month-long cruise or renting a four-seated bycicle, at least they have taken a positive step forward for a change. It was as long overdue as I'm sure a well-earned vacation was for you. Whatever you have going on these coming weeks, I hope you get a chance to relax some and enjoy it to the fullest.
-
"...working on some other things."
[Read the article: Vacation, all I ever wanted]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I believe that's code for..."I'm really going to Vegas, so spin that wheel, roll that loaded dice, bring on the dancing girls and put the champaign on ice!"
Don't worry, the secret is safe. We won't tell Joan a thing. Enjoy!