Letters to the Editor
-
cy and anon -
I'm sorry - but you are not allowed to join us - you have to go outside the door and kick each other until the cows come home - uuh - or something like that!
-
@ Bill Stearns
Here's betting that the level of shrillness from her supporters only increases (provided that's even possible) as February goes on.
You know, it is using words like "shrillness" to describe Clinton supporters that makes me question just how progressive Barack Obama and his supporters really are. Progressives get outraged, OUTRAGED by the use of "racist" words and code phrases, but it's perfectly acceptable to use sexist language without a second thought. And this is because...?
What, exactly, is wrong with you that you can't pull yourselves out of the cave when it comes to women? Please stop this denigration. It's unnecessary; it's disrespectful of women; and it's something that loses points for you, your candidate, and the so-called "progressive" value of 'equality' that you spout.
-
I.m a woman - girl -
and I'm shrill sometimes!
-
Speaking of shrill ...
... check out Paul Krugman's column today in the New York Times. He has completely lost it. Evidently Hillary Clinton has offered him the job of Treasury Secretary if he'll do hit jobs for her. I guess he sees his chances of joining her cabinet slipping away.
-
Obama wins where Dems don't
Hillary's victories in big states like New York and California don't leave me nearly as impressed as Obama's in red and purple states like Nebraska, Kansas, Georgia, Missouri and South Carolina, a few of which he won by crushing margins. No one truly believes that McCain has a real shot at these two coastal behemoths, regardless of which Democrat is on the ticket. But putting these heartland states in play is a winning strategy. If Democrats sincerely want to avoid their third straight defeat, they'll take this to heart and acknowledge that Obama is a much stronger candidate if you really want to run a national, 50 state campaign. Hillary cannot do that and I believe that it will soon become obvious to the superdelegates. (And if Obama upsets expectations on March 4 and takes Ohio, the race is over.)
-
@ RealityCounts
Red States Obama, Blue State Hillary -- Purple?
I am one of those "older" women who support Hillary and I will tell you right now that should Obama win the nomination I will be voting for McCain. If I ever need a motivational speaker, Obama's my guy, but President of the United States? Not yet. He and his supporters may be right, he may be the future, but he is NOT the present. The current world is just too *darn* dangerous for inexperience. And for those democrats who think the blue states are a lock regardless of candidate, I worked on the campaign for George McGovern back in the day...idealism lost 49 states.
I'm really sorry to hear that if Obama wins you'll support McCain. May I ask why?
My second point is to say, "thank you" for your honesty. I agree with everything you have said here. I really couldn't have said it better (except for the "voting for McCain" part). Although, at this point, I really am rethinking an earlier post I made saying that I would support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, because I am very, very concerned -- not only about Obama's inexperience, but about a behavioral shift I see in his campaign of driving a wedge between younger voters and "older" voters, and between "older women" and younger progressive men. This has really started to bother me a great deal. I don't see this as progressive -- at least not the "progressive/liberal" values of the Democratic Party I know.
-
@ ljwalker53
First of all, 'righteous indignation' is gender-neutral. I did not say 'shrill', 'hysterical', or any of the plethora of other perjoratives used in comments about Clinton since she announced her candidacy, so let's just get that non-sequitur out of the way.
I'm only speaking from my direct experience, and again, I'm what would be referred to as a 'soft' Obama supporter - I came into the caucus as an Edwards supporter and was swayed by the arguments and comments of my fellow caucus-goers. Here's a few observations I noticed:
1. Support for both candidates was fairly evenly split along gender lines (e.g. there wasn't an overwhelming number of women supporting Clinton).
2. Support for both candidates was fairly evenly split along generational lines.
3. Both sides seemed to be fairly well informed and reasonably intellegent.
However, I was swayed by a couple of things:
1. At least 1/4 to 1/3 of the arguments made by Clinton supporters in our precinct seemed to focus on the idea that 'it's Hillary's turn' instead of substantive arguments about policy. Perhaps they got self-concious about speaking extemporaneously about their candidate, but it was not very compelling.
2. When the results of the first vote for our precinct were announced, a couple of Clinton supporters stormed off in a huff (and for the record, one was male, one was female - both returned after about 5 minutes). That's what I mean by 'righteous indignation'.
Would hard-core Obama supporters have reacted similarly had the vote gone the other way? Possibly - perhaps probably - but I didn't see that behavior on Saturday. Either way, it really bothered me seeing that kind of juvenile behavior. It reminded me participating in the 1984 Oregon Mock Democratic Convention - specifically the reaction of Mondale supporters (adults, not high school students) when we nominated Hart over Mondale.
As I believe I made clear in an earlier post, I will willingly and happily vote for either candidate in November, I just felt that as presented on Saturday, Obama was the better choice for me.
-
but pwoxby -
he maneaged to come up with one decent phrase at the very very end: "Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable" - that could be our pledge of sane Salonistas!
-
@Anonymous
Anonymous wrote: "It has nothing to do with whether Obama is black or not."
I didn't say anything about him being black, you half-wit.
Are you the same anonymous coward who kept trying to inject Colin Powell into the discussion earlier?
Anonymous: "Voting for a Republican has to do with the cold hard realities of this planet and how the world sees the USA."
Okay, then go vote for McCain no matter who is the candidate. Knock yourself out.
Anonymous: "...we will inevitably become the target of countries who want to test us."
Are you for real? You're just trolling around here, right? You do realize the U.S. is being tested every day in Iraq, right?
Let me ask you a question: Why so anonymous? Why don't you reveal your name? What is it you're afraid of?