Letters to the Editor
-
I noticed - and it has changed my vote
I have been on the fence all year long, opting for one, then for another of the candidates.
But, then, two things happened:
1. Clinton lost Iowa and it hurt.
2. The unmitigating, misogynistic, drooling, sick, chauvinistic commentary of the talking heads & poisoned pens: mainly men but including a few women who should be thrown out of their gender (not for opposing Hillary but for caring more about being seen as part of the boys' club bashing her).
And, as a Californian, I was more than a little angry that the media had decided that the primary campaign ended in New Hampshire.
Hillary is not the woman candidate I would have chosen (ideologically, Kucinich would be my choice although I know he lacks the qualities that make a good President), but I have had it with Matthews & Blitzer & Andrew Sullivan & Bill Kristol, and Arianna Huffington (a major, major disappointment in her joining the sick club of Hillary haters) and, quite frankly, most of the so-called reporters & pundits (TV, print, & - again sadly - blogosphere).
Hillary gets my vote. Period.
-
greenholdt: Please explain why Hillary's dismissal of MLK was such a good feminist idea??
I am sure feminist as you posted are of all hue so why would she create this wedge issue?? Black woman are quite loyal to MLK and Coretta King( I doubt if HRC would have said that why Coretta was alive btw)..
Please elaborate I need some answers I have daughter as well..
-
Terrible analysis, as usual
It depresses me that Traister is able to find work as a writer. Her political commentary is invariably shallow and insipid, and this is no exception. She is correct on one major point: that the media was too eager to see Hillary fall.
However, it's not because she's a woman, it's because she's a robot. Triangulation has become second nature to her, so much so that there doesn't seem to be any principle she won't abandon in her relentless, Terminator-like pursuit of electoral perfection.
It's also because she's a bad candidate. If the Republicans come to their senses and nominate McCain, she will not be able to beat him in swing states, because she can't win over independents, much less conservatives. The negative perception of her may be unfair, it may be sexist, but it's real, and it's going to have a real effect at the ballot box, and for her to know that and try to win the nomination anyway is selfish to the degree that she looks like a political machine on autopilot. Win, win, win - this is all she seems to be programmed to do, at any cost.
I won't go so far as to say that she's unelectable in a general election, but she's only viable because the opposition is so weak and divided this year.
Brendan Moran
San Diego, CA
-
Ridiculous Assertion
This is absurd. The current sitting President has been subjected to the same sort of rhetoric during both of his campaigns, dare I even suggest even more vitriolic. Got in on the coat tails of his daddy, how could he serve as Commander in Chief with his embarassing military service, DUI, found his sensitive compassionate voice with God on and on and on. Much of it I have read right here at Salon. A lot of it from Mr. Mathews over the years. But now it is directed at a candidate who happens to be a woman, and women (and men) must rise to her defense. So when Senator Clinton is President we will not be able to criticize her flaws like the current President (who has given us ample opportunities). This defense of Hillary is nothing more than a great example of white women's racism and sexism. This article and those who buy into it. They may have been saying fuck you for perceived victimization- oh please- white women do believe they are entitled and blind to equity and equality- But what also resonates loud and clear is "Back of the Bus Obamma"
-
RESPONSE TO THRASHER
How you denigrate African-American women when you lump them all into one pile. It's not surprising, though. Many like you believe that if you're Black, you support all things Black. If you're a feminist, you support all things feminist. That's old-time stuff, Thrasher. Old-time thinking.
But let's examine this a bit. Eons ago when I was working for passage of the Equal Rights Amendment, I had overall-clad farm boys come up to me and tell me they were superior to me because they were males. I had suit-clad African-American men come up to me and inform me that I had to wait for my rights until they had theirs. Lately, we old feminist have to contend with young women saying "I'm not a feminist" while enjoying the fruits of our hard work. African-American women working alongside me had/have to deal with all of those things, too.
You assume that women who were committed to Clinton's campaign should jump ship because a young African-American man comes upon the scene. That Clinton should step aside and wait her turn, just like those suit-clad guys who told me I had to wait my turn. Well, I hope we've moved beyond that point in time and narrow thinking. And I think that women who happen to be both Clinton supporters and Black believe the woman who has been in the race the longest shouldn't back off, and are tired of that nonsense.
You do a disservice to all women when you lump us into a certain category called "women's vote" and you do a disservice to African-American women when you think they should all support an African-American man.
Every candidate says what she/he thinks will gain votes. Well, except for Dennis Kucinich possibly...and then I'm not sure. A white male Democrat today used the term "shuck and jive" in referring to "the other candidates" but we know who he was making reference to. That's after Jesse Jackson, Jr. proposed the idea that Hillary faked tears (did anyone see them running down her face, by the way?). Heck, we don't need republicans to bring down out side. We're doing it ourselves....as usual!
We Democrats have the most diverse set of candidates in history. All of them are qualified. All of them have good ideas. One happens to be a woman. One happens to be an African-American man. One happens to be a white male. One that just dropped out happens to be Hispanic in ethnicity. Instead of throwing away our possibility of taking back the White House from the most repressive and damaging administration in history, we need to support our side. Not bicker about trivial things.
Oh, and I think that Coretta Scott King would not say anything. I think she had the common sense of many who have been through the wars. She would have known that it was not driving a wedge, but campaign rhetoric. Just as, by the way, Jesse Jackson, Sr. must have reacted to his son's comments. He's probably already advising Junior not to do that again! Just as African-American women who support Clinton are advising her similarly.
As for me, I still remain undecided.