Letters to the Editor
-
Oh dear. This whole thing is turning so nasty.
First, what Clinton said about MLK, JFK, and LBJ is factually true, but she phrased it ill. Then Bill is slicing grains of rice over Obama's statements about the war. And now this BET person. I don't really know who he is because I never watch TV, but he is utterly rude to Obama.
Obama himself acts smug and above it all, not acknowleging that he dammed Clinton with faint praise and that I-ate-a-lemon look when he said she was "likable enough."
Moreover, the Clintons and the media (even here at Salon!) are acting as if John Edwards is not even in the race even though he beat (barely) Hillary Clinton in Iowa. Edwards made his own mistake by acting school boy tough when he made his remark about Hillary's incident of not crying.
I really am glad I don't watch television. Russert bores me. Chris Matthews makes me want to put my hands over my ears.
Even though I am a dedicated Democrat, I am fatigued by it all. Imagine how the ordinary voting public will feel when they realize that the visible supporters of the Democratic candidates are having a sexist and racist mud fest.
Is it November yet? Please wake me up when this is over.
-
Clinton is happy when the conversation turns to gender.
Because she knows that beyond her gender and her last name, her record does not stand under scrutiny. That is the reason her "tears" have become such an issue. It convinced a lot of women that she was being unfairly piled upon by a bunch of mean boys, and they went out to vote for her because they she appealed to their sense of 'sisterhood.' Don't forget that the question that set her off would never have been asked any of the male candidates. The whole thing was contrived to get the female sympathy vote. How else would you explain the disparity between the polls that were taken on Friday and the final vote? what happened between those two events?
Obama on the other hand, has not exploited his race to the same degree that Hillary has her gender. To do that would "scare away" a lot of potential white voters. his hands are tied on this issue, but he seems to come out of the whole thing pretty well. He says nothing and instead conveys a sense that he is above such trivial bullshit.
In this race vs. gender debate, Hillary clearly has the upper hand. It is in her best interest to keep it on people's lips for as long as possible.
-
Inescapable
I simply cannot stand all this overreaction to every word that every candidate says. Personally, I think it's the press that feeds this monster: ("Senator Obama, Senator Clinton mentioned that it's getting dark out, so she better get home. Oh my god, she said the word dark, obviously a racist remark there, what do you have to say in response?) I don't mean to diminish the impact of words in perpetrating real discrimination, but does anybody actually think Clinton is racist? If she is, then he is too. He clearly started bringing up race and "talking black" when he turned his attention to South Carolina. Obama is my candidate, btw, but pc sensitivity is a particular peeve of mine.
Remember right after 9/11 when we all felt silly for spending too much time on Chandra Levy and such? I remember headlines to that effect: The Death of Irony, No More Superficial News, etc. What a laugh! We're right back where we started.
I think Clinton and Obama are both great candidates with different strengths. At this rate, the longer the primary season, the less likely either will be president.
-
Who's afraid of she-who-had-planned-to-be-president?
About a month ago I became convinced that the race was effectively over: Obama had won. Though New Hampshire was a bit unexpected, I still feel the same way. While Hillary got what was widely perceived to be a sympathy vote that put her over the top in NH, that does not strike me as likely to be repeated. Sympathy wears thin pretty quickly--particularly when its object has dropped the teary sensitive persona for more of an aggresive pit bull approach.
I think it is telling that none of her Senate colleagues has come out in support of Mrs. Clinton since the actual voting began. All of her senatorial endorsements to date were picked up when she was "inevitable." By contrast, Obama has picked up four endorsements from his senate colleagues since the voting has begun, even after Hillary edged him out in NH.
Obama is being swift-boated right now, not because of any failing on his part, but merely because he has gotten in the way of she-who-had-planned-to-be-president. The storm will pass.
Here comes the sun.
America for Obama.
-
What about......?
Is ANYONE going to notice that Hillary, if she wants to claim a share of the Clinton I legacy, is hugging the tar baby of NAFTA and China trade trainwrecks, the co-option of a ruinous (to a lot of poor mothers) Republican "Welfare-to-Work" program, and a totally embarrasing trauma-psycho-drama in the White House sex scandal? Not to mention her botched health plan that set us back decades. And the idiotic and chicken-hearted "don't ask/don't tell" policy.
I mean, come on!!! She wants to wrap herself in that stained flag, then let's explore her inflated record and see what's under the rocks that her errant husband has protected from scrutiny.
-
Walking the civil walk
Thanks to Obama for staying above the pettiness, even when the Clinton attacks get bitter and deceptive. It can't be pleasant, but he will be rewarded!
-
Sport.
Unfortunately, there is little way to move forward in this campaign without the inevitable charge that all sides are going negative. With respect to Senators Clinton and Obama, the political philosophy shared between them is so similar that the only way for them to distinguish themselves from the other is to locate weakness and then exploit it for all the political blood it is worth. Politics is a contest ladies and gentlemen, it is a sport--a modern day equivalent to Roman bloodsport--and to survive one must fight. To the victor goes the spoils and may the best--ahem--person win.