Letters to the Editor
-
Yes Yes and Yes!
When the conventions are over, I am ready to give my money, time, and support to Obama all the way.
The only way I can do it, however, is to stop reading the comments sections of Salon and similar places, where a significant number of Obama supporters disgust me with their ad hominem (as opposed to policy- or performance-related) anti-Clinton BS. I feel like the woman in your article who was disappointed and a little frightened to realize how much misogyny is still out there.
I'm pretty sure many progressive men are flat-out incapable of perceiving themselves as in any way misogynist, sexist, or anything other than totally egalitarian when it comes to sex and gender. It's too big of a disconnect in how they see themselves and their politics. So this subset of crazed Obama-maniacs will never, ever understand what this article is about, will never acknowledge that the women you interview have legitimate views, and will likely go to their graves believing that wanting to punch a "fucking whore" like Hillary Clinton in the face is fully consonant with liberal ideals.
So, this comment is not for them. It's just to say thanks, Salon and Ms. Traister, for getting the news out there for those of us who have ears to hear it.
-
LeCastrata
Obama was president if the Harvard Law Review. Billary took three times to pass the bar. She knows a lot of facts. She is not in his league intellectually. Not close. She does whine better than he does, though, to give credit where credit is due.
-
Yeppers, on the health care policy
Or factual. Bruch points to healthcare as an area in which "Hillary's policy is the more politically progressive one, but this has somehow been ignored, and Obama was projected upon as the progressive redeemer. It's a political fantasy."
Obama is no progressive "redeemer" as even a cursory examination of his political connections and past discloses (see the excellent Harper's magazine piece, 'Barack Obama, Inc.')
It is also very true that HRC's health care proposal is the more progressive, and unlike Obama's, doesn't just take care of children.
As an older (61) American who will have to purchase private health insurance next month, I am dreading the prospect. So far, even with a $2000 deductible the lowest rates on some policies are at $420 a month, and this is provided you inhabit the right geographical region(they have regions, I-V, and some are 20% or more higher. When I asked one insurance person abou this, he replied: "Well, it's just like auto insurance! There are differnet rates depending on where you live!"
A further look at the info shows they can also charge more if you happen to inhabit the wrong zip code.
This isn't right, and something has to be done. It is insane that health insurers can charge differently depending on your address. It is unconscionable they can also refuse to insure you at all, say if they find some "previous condition" that doesn't meet their expectations.
And this is why I am terrified. What previous condition will they find that prevents me from getting a policy, and protecting my family's assets from being annihilated if I should have a health care calamity?
Hillary seems to have much more sound ways of addressing this issue than Obie, and even Elizabeth Edwards, a week or so ago on Olbermann, noted that she preferred Hillary's plan.
That's why I have to back her. In the hope she can alter this horrendous health care nightmare for those of us caught in the margins.
-
Skewed picture
I went to an Obama political meeting in my small town last week. There were all ages, genders and races of people involved. A number of students were there. Having heard all the hoopla about students supporting Obama because it was "cool" or "trendy," not because they were informed, it was very impressive to me to listen to students (both male and female) talk articulately and convincingly about having read his books and about elements of his platform that mattered to them. O didn't meet any "Obamabots" or Hillarybashers at this meeting, just a diverse group of informed, concerned people.
At the county-wide Democratic convention I later attended, there were a disproportionately large number of Obama supporters and a handful of Hillary supporters. Again, the Obama supporters came in all ages, races, genders, etc. But everyone was very respectful (on both sides).
So maybe you just haven't met enough voters and are working with a skewed sample.
-
It's not about sexism.
It about Obama playing the youth and race cards over and over, knowing the Clintons love black folk and are sensitive about all the crap they've had to endure. The youth card, talk about 'old politics' and 'a new generation of leaders', is blatant bigotry and would never fly without smoke screens from the msm. Neither will fly in the ge because many Americans see them as victim cards. Incidently, my people have their own problems. Try having your love life stolen from you before you're an adolescent and see how you like it.
But now it's serious. Despite our ace in the hole, that most people know the war was a mistake, it's not clear that Obama can even win the ge. First, his ideas are either serious policies taken from the Clintons or dated far left cliches. Dictator parties and camapign reform indeed. Why doesn't he just add Nader's proportional representation and have done with it? Then his pastor makes a charming comment about America. Now he openly insults the red States.
This will be the second time the far left has done it to us, put up an unqualified ideologue to parrot their fanatsies on a national stage. And we loose a critical election. At the very least, his mandate will be restricted to ending the war. And the precious moment of opportunity for the democrats will be lost.
-
Hey, bitter proto-feminists: Back off already!
Hillary. Clinton. Voted. To authorize. The war. Got it?
I spent FAR too much of 2003 and 2004 trying to drag that sea-anchor to the presidency. I'll be goddamned if I'm going to do it again. It's absolutely radioactive - as it should be. That makes me "sexist?"
I've actually come to like Hillary better through this process. (Her campaign staff is another story entirely.)
I think she's incredibly competent and hardworking. But if the last 8 years has taught us anything, it's that you absolutely can not go it alone, in policy foreign or domestic. And she's simply too polarizing (unfair, I know, but true) to build consensus effectively.
Conversely, seeing other people's point of view seems to be Obama's specialty. This augurs well.
Was that "wild-eyed?" Scary? Sexist? I don't think so.