Letters to the Editor
-
@China & rnost
So, would either of you care to address the far more substantive matter of Obama's extensive autobiographical fabrications, not to mention a whole passel of his much more recent lies/distortions/prevarications? Your comrade above hasn't answered and your candidate is busy at the moment in PA wrapping himself in the American flag. You know, the one that's in danger of regressing to 48 stars among certain Democratic circles?
-
This Obama Supporter
...not only was very moved by the retelling of what was not only Hillary Rodham's evolution into HRC and ultimately into my second choice for President, but was also offended as hell by the way those last couple paragraphs turned the whole thing on its head, since Ms. Clinton's political coming-of-age was very nearly a parallel to my own, at least until she decided the label was more important than the person wearing it and changed parties, which certainly doesn't make her unique or even wrong. Dwight Eisenhower did it going the other way, a decade or so earlier. I certainly don't hold it against her, and I also don't believe she'll wind up cribbing from Hizzoner's playbook in the end, either.
It's true: the way things were back then were very different from the way they are now, and it is very difficult to explain to anyone who wasn't there.
Oh, and hell yes there were bookbags in 1968 -- and there were big briefcases to serve the same purpose back in the late 1950s, too. My closest friend back then used to use his, fully loaded, to flatten the ignorami against the walls in school when he couldn't reason with them.
This article made me feel wistful, then kind of sad and, in the end pretty damned angry. Why the hell did it have to end on such a sour, cynical note?
-
"Why should we believe these stories any more?"
I loved the one she told on Ellen today about her wonderful gay neighbors... I'm half-expecting her to go on BET and start yammering about "the African-American girl who was my best friend as a child".
-
Lyndon Johnson
LBJ was the one who really pushed the Viet Nam war. President Eisenhower refused to allow our troops to get into the fighting. President Kennedy got our troops involved, something like 18000. LBJ went in big time.
As for Civil Rights, President Truman desegregated our armed forces. President Eisenhower was the first one to send troops into the southern states to enforce Civil Rights. It went on from there.
So how did the armed forces get segregated? That was done by President Woodrow Wilson. The racist stuff peaked about 1910. Before then, the Blacks were off in the cotton fields, etc and not noticed much. Mainly Minstrel Shows and the like.
LBJ got way too involved in Viet Nam and was hiding the costs. His Guns and Butter just caused much inflation.
-
kate et al
I think Hillary has started to believe her ghost writers. Obama is actually a writer and even though his royalties were lower they were his own words. In fact I have been supportive of the Clintons for years when they needed defending I suppose. The bad news is that they have now become what offended them and me. I am old enough to remember 1968 at 20 or so so it is not a deep mystery. Hillary could do very well with the truth in her own words but she is unfortunately campaigning with bull crap from her advisors.
Today a Montana legislator (super delegate) endorsed Obama in spite of Clinton pleas simply saying "he reminds me why I am a Democrat" I am inclined to remember the Clintons fondly but dance ... it's been long and lonely winter ... it's alright I say doo bee dee doo here comes the sun!
-
Oh, my god, that last paragraph was SO unfair!
It made cynical and unfriendly remarks about my favorite candidate which I just can't take. Ahhhhhhh. It's so very not-even-handed (like Glenn Greenwald's new book), couldn't they publish the article without the ending?
I mean sheesh, people? If you can't stand to hear the fact that Hillary is a bit calculating, then you have a problem.
-
they probably read from parchment scrolls back then....
and carried them around in a quiver.
I've seen there's something passing for "argument" going around the internet suggesting "they" didn't have book bags or even arm bands "back then." Presumably "they" never had sex either.
Here's a fun experiment boys and girls, research!... Just a tiny bit of creative and relatively pain-free googling will take one to places like, oh, "The New York Times" archives (shall we define "archive"?), and voila! There we find an article from 1963 discussing the actual use of "book bags" (quoting the actual article here which uses the actual term: "book bag") to carry actual books. Especially popular, apparently, amongst students from Radcliffe, Harvard, Cambridge, and other real schools, for example. Used also for stuffing all manner of foodstuffs, souvenirs and even bathing suits into whilst travelling (yes, "they" had even bathing suits "back then"). Europeans were known to carry them to market. One could, the article (from 1963 -- pay attention) notes, pull the strap out and sling it over one's shoulder, turning it into a shoulder bag (you mean "they" had shoulder bags back then? good grief.). Reference librarians apparently described them as a "sack-like affairs" (not to be confused with anything related to Eliot Spitzer).
At some point in history ("history," look it up), a debate ensued as to the origin of the book back, some suggesting it originated in the Elizabethan period, others in the 18th century.
link (and dammit I paid for it): http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F70C11F73F581A7B93C0A9178DD85F478685F9
As for armbands, haven't y'all ever watched any really really old movies? Gad. Some days I really do despair.
-
OMG
calculation can be cool and calculus also but it is the nails on the chalkboard (this Clinton campaign) that creeps me out not to mention the optics of a minimum four years of finger wagging in stereo
-
pardon the screwed grammar....
Then again, at least I know it's wrong.
-
And by the way
ohmercy, thank you, that was fabulous.
-
This puff piece is poofed by facts
First, Hillary's recollection of the events of that day where read from a piece of paper. I have never seen anyone recall what happened when JFK was shot and have to read it from paper. Second, if Hillary made such a turn around from being a "Goldwater Girl" 1964, Goldwater who opposed the Voting Rights Act, to someone who was so emotionally connected to the chief proponent of the Act by 1968, namely Martin L. King Jr., her emotional connection to King is completely void in your story.
Third, her stories of being a proponent for civil rights for women issues comes into question when the Act passed in 1965 and according to your story she still was a Republican by 1968. Even if she was changed by her pastor, or by hearing one of MLK's speeches in that year, it is awfully hard to believe that she felt as distraught as she portrayed about MLK's death since King was not solely an advocate for women’s causes.
Somehow believing that she felt like giving up on her causes over the death a Black man who was known as a radical "Black" preacher she met only once, really stretches the imagination. Especially when you consider her treatment of Pastor Wright who's statements about America's mistreatment of minorities and abuse of power she was happy to disavow, vilify, and misuse to score political points. Talk about a transition...now that's one I can believe. Sneaky girl to power hungry woman.
One sneaky cover-up to the next, going with the flow for ulterior motives, denounce and reject Rev. Wright when everyone is looking only to embrace Richard Mellon Scaife, Ruppert Murdoch, and Blackwater. Transitioning should be her "First" name. Imagine what she would transition to if she became President!.... Whoa!
We really are blessed to have gotten someone as good as Obama in such a timely occurrence. It's almost a miracle! And I'm an Atheist! We can leave Billary to twist and turn into whatever they are some where we can't be hurt by them again. What a plague the American people have suffered under Bush, Clinton, Bush, Cl......(Stop the madness)......Obama 08!
We need to dream again as a nation, not piddle around in Hillary's mind trying to figure out what she's talking about. If 1968 or King's death did anything for Hillary then good for her, but we can't afford to figure out after she gets into office that she does not have a firm connection to realities that face the American people. The last thing they need is someone else pushed around by idealistic men...we've be there done that....one time too many!
Remember when we used to respect our leaders? I don't! and I'm over 40! Time for change! Obama in 08