Letters to the Editor
-
THIS IS VERY ENTERTAINING, BY THE WAY
This captured the dread I was feeling and what I was watching unfolding -- indeed, ever since Hillary Clinton appeared on the scene years ago and had the Audacity to be Ambitious, the scrum has been sent flying. How dare she have confidence and a sense of value and purpose in the public sphere! Why doesn't she have five children? She must not even be a woman! Very entertaining and I've emailed it to a number of friends as well...
-
Grating Graphic #2
First it was making Obama's message of hope a cartoon. Now it's Hillary's moment of emotion = a bawling baby. Good grief. With juvenile visuals, not to mention "witch" and "ding-dong" in the headline...I guess I mean, with friends like this...
Maybe Salon's trying to compensate for its lack of objectivity by using humiliating illustrations for our candidates. Skip it.
Passionate article that touched on my disenfranchisement with great eloquence. Thank you for it.
I could not, as a feminist, vote for Hillary on the basis of a pile-on, nasty as it was. As a feminist I have to vote for the person whom I think might galvanize healing for America's relationship to the world and stop global warming. Domestically, she's divisive and I would fear another savage fight from the far right. And while she's respected internationally, I think the world needs some soothing from the U.S. President. Personality wise, Obama seems to carry a gravitas with a long reach. Not because he's already schmoozed the world leaders, but because they will meet him and they will know something new is going on. I really have faith that he would conduct diplomacy in a new way. And should he have to conduct war, he will at least think it through.
If Hillary is the nominee I will help her and vote for her. They are all three human and flawed, so whoever we choose, we'll have to accept their clay feet too. Any combination on the ticket would work. Obama-Edwards is my choice but Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton could work too.
The rest, the "it's time to have a woman president". It's all true, but it's secondary to change that shakes things up in our government, and extends hope for a working coalition not just here, but with other allies and new allies, to change the world.
Might as well think big. It's kind of planetary election, too.
I'm inspired by Hillary as a symbol but not as a person. (I didn't like the temper stories from her time in the White House. I don't want a president with a temper.) I'm somewhat inspired by Edwards but more by his message. I'm inspired by Obama as a person and by his message, and I need to learn more about everybody's policies.
-
i'm so tired of hillary-bashing...
...and i'm even more tired of the oh-so-common 'i don't know why but i just don't like hillary'-squeamishness.
again... i like hillary. but more than that, we have to get a woman into office. period. she doesn't need to be a superhero. she doesn't need to say everything right or embody everything you think she should embody. the mere FACT of a woman president says what desperately needs to be said to the country and to the rest of the world.
this is very likely the only chance at making this statement during our lifetime. in fact, perhaps the first woman president will necessarily fall short in people's eyes, no matter who she is. perhaps she NEEDS to be imperfect and 'male-like' to get into office and to OPEN THE DOOR for other women presidents - as well as for women in other traditionally male-dominated positions.
in an ideal world, a better feminist icon would run for office. but i just don't believe she would be elected! hillary is needed to change people's minds about what women are capable of. i think it's a big mistake to overestimate this country's attitudes about gender and women's abilities.
so stop knit-picking and look at the forest from the trees. her presidency would be progress that we all need. one may even argue that women not electing her is a giant step in the wrong direction - it sends a terrible message.
-
Chris Matthews showed his true colors
Rebecca Traister wrote "...Chris Matthews is a ding-dong" but in my most humble opinion, Christ Matthews is the lowest thing there is. It was sad to see him pile on Hillary Clinton and to see him disrespect Dee Dee Myers on his show, and all because they are women. Usually, and I have seen this many times, men who bash strong intelligent women, and have disdane for them, have wives who rule the roost. When their wife won't let them have their way, they cross their arms(like Matthews did) and go in a corner and pout. A weak man hates a strong woman and Chris Matthews showed all of that during the New Hampshire primary. The only thing worth noting about Chris Matthews' reporting is that he most likely had been kicked in the head by a mule when he was young and probably never recovered from it.
-
oh stop it,
"I could not, as a feminist, vote for Hillary on the basis of a pile-on, nasty as it was. As a feminist I have to vote for the person whom I think might galvanize healing for America's relationship to the world and stop global warming. Domestically, she's divisive and I would fear another savage fight from the far right"
I am not about to be afraid, not at this point, not with what we donkeys have in common. The word feminist has never scared me; nor should it scare any of you. In my opinion but of course.
Stop fearing the savage right attack. Tt will come, no matter who we nominate. b.f.d.
Stand up for ourselves. Let us see what=all happens.
-
to bolster sherrie's point...
it's also okay that hillary may prove to be more divisive than obama because with a true democrat as pres and a democratic congress - they might actually get some good things accomplished! the danger with obama is that if emphasis is placed on being moderate and unifying with the GOP at the expense of democratic actions, then the adminiatration will end up spinning its wheels - not to mention the wheel-spinning that will result to allow barack to get up to speed with the oval office. ironic how obama claims to glavanize voters because it will result in gridlocked standstill. (cf. hillary- who would hit the ground running).
on top of all of this, again, THIS IS OUR ONLY CHANCE FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT AND HILL KNOWS THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST WOMEN (e.g. Susan Estrich) SHE CAN APPOINT TO HER CABINET AND THE COURTS. this is A MONUMENTAL HISTORICAL MOMENT FOR CHANGING ATTAITUDES TOWARDS WOMEN AND GENDER RELATIONS.
AND BY THE WAY, VOTING WITHOUT RESPECT TO GENDER (OR RACE) MAY SEEM LIKE THE FAIR OBJECTIVE APPROACH BUT IT'S NOT. basic liberal and critical feminist and racial theories promote the acknowledgement and exploration of differences. you're not doing anyone a justice trying to select a candidate with blinders on to their sex, religion and race.