Letters to the Editor
-
The same people
who detect sexism in what Obama said claim to see nothing misandric in popular culture. Amazing.
-
Ain't it the truth!
Not only is Senator Obama's comment perceptive, it is so much more civil and thoughtful than the disgraceful things the Clinton campaign has been loosing lately.
For example, the Clintons have been circulating attacks on Obama written by the McCain campaign! Think about that: one Democratic candidate using Republican propaganda to attack another Democrat. I have seen this myself, though I would not have believed it if I had not.
What kind of party do we want the Democratic Party to be? What kind of country do we want to live in? What kind of person do we want as President?
-
The Obama message
The Obama message is becoming louder and clearer; and to some people's surprise it is not really one of unity.
This post by Katherine Mieszkowski, as well as the general strategy of the Obama campaign from day one are clearly represented by what we heard from Doug Wilder, Mayor of Richmond, Virgina, on CBS News "Face the Nation" this AM. He basically threatened that the Democratic Convention this year would be worse than the one in 1968 if the Obama people were not happy with the votes of the superdelegates.
The Obama Message: If I am elected, I will bring the country together. If not, I will tear this party and this country apart.
So much for the "I am a uniter" pose.
-
Clinton Underestimates
won'tgetfooledagain-
Can you honestly not see the difference between deliberate divisiveness and fighting for the principles of popular democracy?
Senator Clinton and her supporters are seriously underestimating the outrage that will be generated within the Democratic Party if she tries to mitigate popular election results with an elite group of political appointees.
Democrats who expended a lot of energy in 2000 arguing that popular votes, not supreme court appointees, should decide the outcome of an election will be hard pressed to support George W. Bush's strategy within their own party. Apparently, the Clintons and the Bushes are drawn to exactly the same brand of 'winner take all' politics. Both families have apparently been corrupted by their powerlust to the point of seeing institutions as loopholes for achieving their own objectives.
But America does not need Politbureau politics and hijacking democracy is bad form no matter who does it.
If superdelegates decide on the basis of personal connections to overturn popular electioral decisions it will be time for Democrats to reevaluate how democratic their party really is.
-
Syntaz?
"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."
This sentence by the great orator seems grammatically incorrect, strucutered like the classic, "Toss the baby out the window a cookie."
-
well
The day that Obama dismisses Clinton's wins as comparable to those of Geraldine Ferraro will be the day I acknowledge he is sexist. This feminist sees him trying to be sort of funny and failing. It's stupid, but just not offensive.
-
Clinton's Problem
Senator Obama's ad points out the major problem Senator Clinton's campaign has now - more and more people don't believe what she says. The Clintons have used so much spin that people are not sure what is fact and what is fiction.
If Senator Clinton has given the speech she just gave about differences between the two candidates two or three months ago, voters in past primaries might have given her more support.
Senator Obama needs to stay the course in order to counter the confusion the Clinton campaign is trying to create for voters in Wisconsin.
-
@person
I'll take that as a "no" then.
(I googled "feeling down in the polls" and the only references I can find are from Obama supporters insisting this is what he meant).
Of course men can "feel down" as well as women. Can any one point to male political opponents accusing one another of "feeling down" as a basis to launch an attack?
It seems there are "fair game" rules that only apply to this female candidate. It's "fair" to accuse her of "pimping out" her daughter to Superdelegates, while remaining silent about all the children of male candidates who work on their dads' campaigns. It's ok to say this female candidate is where she is *only* because women feel sorry for her, or because her husband is famous, while remaining silent about the coattails other male candidates freely ride. It's "fair" to accuse this female candidate of being too emotional, or not emotional enough, while the male candidates are not similarly discussed (howard Dean's "scream" comes close, but that was a singular event; Romney is far more plastic/robotic, and MccAin is more emotional -angry as opposed to teary, perhaps, but wrath is an emotion). It's "fair" to conflate this female candidate with her husband, as if they were a two-headed monster, and critique his actions and ideas as if they were hers, while the male candidates' politically-active family members are considered as separate from the candidate. And it's "fair" to decide everything HRC says and does is "calculating", while everything Obama says or does is given the benefit of the doubt.
As for what Obama meant by his statement, only he knows for sure. The rest is opinion. My opinion is that he was implying that HRC uses negative campaign tactics as a mood-booster. I suppose that in and of itself isn't "sexist", but since such accusations have not been leveled at any male campaigner, and plenty of them have gone negatives (and many of them are perobably in need of a mental pick-me-up), I think the comment was also a comment against HRC's sex.
Lastly, I assume (though would be happy to be corrected)Obama was referring to HRC's "speeches vs substance" speech given on Feb. 14. which *was* a valid argument for HRC to make. Voters are free to agree with her or not, but her statements were not demeaning, degrading, misandrist, racist, or IMHO inaccurate. Instead of rebutting HRC's criticisms, which Obama could surely have done (how many times have I heard Obama supporters say "He's got plenty of plans! Plenty of specifics! Plenty of service!"), he instead said she was being mean because she felt bad about herself.
As I've said before, I'm hardly "outraged" by this one comment, or by Obama in general. I'm just disappointed in slips like this: I expect better of him.