Letters to the Editor
-
What if Hillary Clinton gave a speech about gender? (And why she won't.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2187189/pagenum/2/
By Melinda Henneberger and Dahlia Lithwick
-
Jon Stewart
In the Daily Show following Obama's phenomenal, seminal speech, Jon summed it up: "at eleven o'clock on a Tuesday morning, Obama spoke to Americans about race as if they were adults." We have only to read through this thread, if you have the stomach, to see how few adults there are. It's a damned shame. But it's not over yet, and he's ahead, and nobody's fool. In contrast, Billary is everybody's fool. The Clintons got together and had their conscience removed. They are part of the Murka that pastor right correctly damned.
-
@Madam: Harsh Link
I'm going to start saying 'la-la-la-la' right about now.
-
Goldfinger/Earfinger
Ram your pinkies in your ears, Fester. That'll change things. Or, read he NYT article about whether Obama,a 'liberal" can change things. In contrast to Shawn the Pawn or Dogstyle, I know you can read. give it a try. We have a chance here, a rare chance, perhaps a chance that will not come again. Messiah? No. No way. But a great shot at a real break from what we've endured? Yes.
-
to pdx-Kirk
Yeah, I struggle a bit with Open Primaries also. It does hurt those that chose to be Independent and removes any effective gauge of how they will vote.
That is a tough one.
Moreover, where I live for years, the Republican Primary WAS the election for local races. Democrats were just nowheresville around here. If you wanted a say in who would represent you, you voted Republican. The November election was just the coronation. So I would vote Republican in the Primary to vote for my local reps, then Democratic in November for the national elections.
So in retrospect I guess I change my mind, that closed primaries are not an answer either.
As screwy as Texas's system is, it makes sense to me. A popular vote followed by a caucus of the party faithful.
Isnt that what the superdelegates are?
There are reasons things evolve.
-
Madam - Hillary DID give a speech about gender
It's ranked 35 of 100 at the American Rhetoric website:
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/hillaryclintonbeijingspeech.htm
It's most noted excerpt:
It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls.
It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution for human greed -- and the kinds of reasons that are used to justify this practice should no longer be tolerated.
It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire, and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small.
It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war.
It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes by their own relatives.
It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.
It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
-
After all
That'll change things. Or, read he NYT article about whether Obama,a 'liberal" can change things
My how foolish can one get.
After all, Obamateur's been such an agent of change in South Chicago and Illinois! Not to mention within his church! And oh, yes, a uniter.
Better just stick with logging in as multiple alias and having a vulgarity contest with yourself, payne-no.
-
The Democrats
I am from Indiana,a conservative state and home of the very liberal former Senator Birch Byah and his son, the middle of the roader, Senator Evan Byah.
Indiana will go for Clinton.
Bet on it!
-
Stupid White Male, Repeatedly
You're so dim witted that you can't differentiate between writing styles. Yes, we all find you tedious, pretentious, thick, and brutish, but we have our own way of expressing contempt for you and your jackbooted approach to political discourse. You'd have made a great Austrian in the early thirties, or a British toady in the 1770's. Your tongue is so deeply implanted in the clintonian tush it's a miracle you have access to your windpipe whilst you speak out of your clenched sphincter. Did you have 4000 dead party with your klan kohorts? You're the same sort of muddleheaded anger blinded buttmuncher that used to scream 'my country right or wrong' while I was serving during the Vietnam war. You are so self evidently a republikan plant (Audrey II?) that your cover has been blown. Like Bill, Shrillary Hillary's co-president. Piss on a sparkplug, gestapo sycophant. love heywood
-
Walter you did not indicate that your writings are only your Opinion
Walter Shapiro, I expected you to use the words, "It is my Opinion" in all of your writings. The Public then has a clearer understanding.
-
Hallelujah
I was getting so tired of the spin in most of the articles on Salon that it made my head spin. It almost made me miss this straightforward and objective article on the state of the "primaries."
I have heard the arguments, but have never really understood the primacy of Iowa and New Hampshire. They are hardly representative of the US, let alone the Democratic Party. The reason that they stay that way is analogous to the power of money in politics. No one wants to speak against it, because it will cause them to lose the support of those states that currently determine too much of the outcomes.
This primary season has been an unmitigated disaster for the Democratic Party. In the past I have been a devoted Democrat, but this primary season has made me question my allegiance. Of course, if I were not a devoted Democrat, I probably would not care.
The party really needs a national primary in order to bring back some sanity. That is the only way to bring the primaries back to the people and thereby lessen the need for superdelegates.
Short of that, the Democratic Party should 1) let states have primaries whenever they want, and 2) preclude caucuses from participation. The other short term reform could be to winner-take-all primaries.
If the Democratic Party wanted more of a representative process, it could count the caucuses relative to the number of people who participate, such that if you have participation from 1% of the registered democrats you get a proportional 1% of the delegates for your state.
Although I am very happy in the big picture that we no longer have a dominance of back room deals, looking back through history, it is easy to get the impression that the back room deals seem to have had a better success rate than the current distorted state of primaries.