Letters to the Editor
-
actually, Xrandadu, what is "retarded"
is that you cannot see how the Republicans are quietly tucking away Michelle's comment to feast upon later, no matter what your sentiments on the comment itself. I'm probably one of the more cynical, tattooed, ultra liberal, 30-something females you will meet, but this comment baffled even me. For instance, when I witnessed people from all over the country traveling to help our city after 9-11 and how everyone pulled together during Katrina, it awakened this weird nugget of pride I didn't know existed within me. You can feel this and still remain appropriately skeptical. Or, maybe I'm finally turning into a "grown-up."
Also "retarded" is how people think they can accurately determine who is more "electable" against McCain. Both Obama and Clinton have positives and negatives, known and unknown factors. Surprises don't always present themselves as gifts.
Anyway, I'm not here to insult Democratic candidates. I'm not a 4-year-old redneck.
-
10:16 AM Anon
Okay, if I was in Obama's position, here is how I would deal with it:
"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Samuel Johnson once said that, and I think it applies here, as my opponent can't tackle me on the issues, he needs to play up on this subject.
-
Anonymous...
Anon: "is that you cannot see how the Republicans are quietly tucking away Michelle's comment to feast upon later, no matter what your sentiments on the comment itself."
They're going to tuck all sorts of things away. What else is new. If Michelle Obama carelessly stating something positive is the sort of material they have to jump on, the American public will tire very quickly of their methods.
Anon: "I'm probably one of the more cynical, tattooed, ultra liberal, 30-something females you will meet, but this comment baffled even me."
Yes, you certainly are cynical. In an uneven way.
Anon: "For instance, when I witnessed people from all over the country traveling to help our city after 9-11 and how everyone pulled together during Katrina, it awakened this weird nugget of pride I didn't know existed within me."
That might have been a gall stone.
Seriously, though, that was a different kind of pride, a different time -- people coming together to grieve and heal and offer support. Personally I didn't feel so much "pride" as a general sense that humanity had managed to show its best side during a very dark moment. It's funny, though, how quickly, for some people at least, that same pride turned into something rigid and ugly ("Freedom fries," "these colors do NOT run," etc.), as well as blinding people to the notion that gosh, U.S. policies for a couple decades might have given extremists a reason to hate us, as if even discussing this possibility were somehow treasonous (see: Susan Sontag in the New Yorker).
Anon: "You can feel this and still remain appropriately skeptical. Or, maybe I'm finally turning into a "grown-up.""
You sure like that "grown-up" canard. What, are you AnaHadWolves, or factcheck? I can't keep you folks straight. One of you writes for Bitch magazine, one of you writes for The City Edition, or.....something. Hard to keep up when the Anonymous shield goes up like a tinted windshield during a hailstorm.
Anon: "Also "retarded" is how people think they can accurately determine who is more "electable" against McCain."
Okay, so why are the Clinton supporters bringing it up then? As I recall, that argument has been brought up (in Salon at least) more often by Clinton people. Then Obama people parry by citing the Zogby polls, and next thing you know, people are criticizing the polls. Well.....it was your argument to begin with. (Though from what I've observed Obama has already turned his sights quite piercingly on McCain and is already very carefully assessing his weaknesses. He's coming out strong as a supporter of the armed forces and demonstrating his fitness to be Commander in Chief. I don't think he's doing bad job of this.)
Anon: "Both Obama and Clinton have positives and negatives, known and unknown factors. Surprises don't always present themselves as gifts."
True. I have said and I will say again: I don't think Hillary Clinton is so bad. Much of my posting on here is a reaction to the incessant attacks on Obama, which are often juvenile, fatuous and based in talking-points rhetoric. I feel like I'm playing Whack-a-Mole. If Obama people were pulling the kinds of stuff that a lot of Clinton supporters have been pulling, I would tell them to clean up their act. (And yeah, I haven't always been perfect either, but I try to steer myself right when I go overboard.)
Personally, here is my take: Hillary Clinton would make a very good president. Obama will also make a very good president. Of the two, I think Obama has the most potential to become a great president. I don't doubt that Clinton has that potential too, but I see more of it in Obama.
I don't think Clinton's gender should be a major consideration. I sympathize with all the women who feel an affinity for Clinton because of her being a woman, and because of the shitty attacks on her over the years. I completely understand that. But I would not want people to base their vote on that.
I also think Hillary's experience is at best a mixed bag. She does have years and years of connection to many realms of politics and policy and commerce and law. But I'm not sure that she has always demonstrated that her experience has turned her into leader-of-the-free-world material. I think a skeptical look at her vote on Iraq is appropriate. And some other concerns. Nor do I think Obama's record is perfect.
Anyway, I just wish people here could try to be a little more level-headed about this. It's turned into this mud-slinging pissing match and a lot of more intelligent conversation has been edged out (and I am sure I contributed to that somewhat). I just don't get the people who think a repetitive campaign to keep slinging disingenuous, malformed attacks is actually a positive thing to do.