Letters to the Editor
-
Don't Get It
I don't undserstand why Obama is considered more progessive than Hillary when he too voted to fund the war and to extend the Patriot Act.
-
Meow!
Kitty's got claws!
-
Why I'm still not for Hillary Clinton
Thank you, Frances Kissling, for putting that icky feeling I have about not being for Hillary into words. I haven't been able to defend my choice to support Barack instead to my mother and mother-in-law quite so eloquently. I don't think until reading your essay was I even quite sure why.
-
Awesome!
Actually about in the issues, rather than the polish.
Yes, despite the blond maleness, John Edwards represents a better "Feminist" candidate than Hillary Clinton. Why? Because the predominant "feminist" problems today are class-based, rather than gender-based.
Pity so many have (thus far) failed to recognize (or admit, or acknowledge, or entertain) this point.
Simply: A society in which the "family" earning $50,000 a year can reasonably expect to pay for survival and education is a FAR more "feminist" society than the one we inhabit today. This is a basic element which *must* be addressed before any issues which affect blacks or women can be properly addressed.
We can bicker forever about who should be earning big bucks for their work today, and there are excellent points to be made (on several sides). But most simply and essentially, WOMEN in the USA suffer more than the "other half" of the population more because of their wealth. More so than for any other single reason. So do Blacks. As has been demonstrated sufficiently, rich women and rich Blacks tend to do JUST FINE when presented with the most onerous challenges our culture might inflict.
What would happen to Paris Hilton or Nicole Richie if one of them just happened to grab a cop's gun in the midst of some mindless scuffle? Even OJ?
Why is that?
Yeah, we KNOW that women don't make as much. Whatever is causing that effect is not something that we, as a culture, can effectively address without ALSO addressing some racist and homophobic tendencies.
Once we get "class" right, all the other bigotries will reveal themselves (for quantification) pretty darn quick. Let's get that all worked out with this chance, then follow up with other points.
(I make this case from the perspective of "our nation's history.")
-
Hillary...
Clinton would never have gotten this far if she did not act like a stereotypical man.
Clinton has got a set of brass balls. Which is more than I can say for any of her opponents. That much we know for sure.
Frankly, I don't care whose definition of "woman" Clinton fits or doesn't fit. I don't care if her style seems "masculine." She is competent, and for this emotionally-inexpressive, intelligent introvert, she is actually very personable. I was the geek, the nerdy kid with too much knowledge and not enough style in school. I'm still not good at expressing my emotions, even though I certainly have them. So to be frank, I found Clinton's voice cracking to be far more moving than any grand speech popular-kid Obama has given.
One thing I know for certain is that any Democratic president would be a change for the better, but not a significant change. I have no faith in Obama's ability to back up his absurd hope-talk with actions: I have no reason to believe that Obama's version of bipartisanship could possibly look different than Liberman's, or involve anything other than moderates continuing to make concessions to rabid conservatives. Obama would be better than any of the Republicans but I can't understand the absurd and totally unjustified obsession over him.
Clinton is competent. Our most competent presidents have almost never been especially compelling speakers or especially inspiring people to behold. Frankly, I would take Clinton's practicality, which I can rely on, and her strength of character, which she proves at every turn as she endures more criticism than every other candidate combined, over the vague and pretty speech-making of a man who only managed to show in his short political career that he is a slave to industry.
-
Thank you
I don't have to be Chris Matthews to be suspicious of Hillary.
Hillary Clinton says she's for change, but she makes no effort to distinguish herself from her husband. "Thirty-five years of experience" means "his record IS my record."
Don't get me wrong; the Clinton years weren't all bad. But the agony of the Bush years washes away the pallor of wasted hopes and missed opportunities that littered the Clinton presidency.
We as a nation are ready for a woman President. But I'm not an ogre for distrusting Hillary, and she'll only get my vote begrudgingly, at best.
-
Who Cares
Really don't flatter yourself. You are one of those yuppie elites who will never get it why poor, less educated people have voted for Clintons in 1990s and will always vote for Clinton.
-
@opandora
who wrote:
Who Cares
Really don't flatter yourself. You are one of those yuppie elites who will never get it why poor, less educated people have voted for Clintons in 1990s and will always vote for Clinton.
(((((((((
so, tell us. In your infinite wisdom, why DID they vote for the Clintons instead of some other Democrat?
If the answer is that the Clintons would do more for them than anyone else, ok, I buy that.
But, if it's something more, tell us. I'm genuinely curious.
This business of people voting against their own interests is always fascinating, and I don't doubt that some dems do it, just like most goopers do it.
-
Interesting re the oh so pure feminists who disdain Hillary and her poor women supporters
I guess they think the women who vote for Hillary are just dumb,and poor to boot. Funny this woman wears Catholicism on her sleeve and doesn't stop short to wonder why the poor and downtrodden support HRC. I agree it sounds like a yuppie elite. They always want to be able to say they're pure, and who cares what happens to actual poor folks?
-
Hey Anonymous
There's an awful lot of trolls posting anti-obama messages anonymously. And if you can't see the difference between voting not to leave our soldiers in the lurch when in the middle of a war, and voting to start the war in the first place, then you are an idiot.
With that out of the way, great post Frances. The reason I oppose Hillary has nothing to do with gender, her looks or even her personality (although the last doesn't help).
The fact is, the Clintons had plenty of opportunity to establish their progressive bona fides over the last fifteen years, and they instead opted for policies friendly to large corporations and socially conservative Americans nearly every time.
The Republicans are staggering, and we have an opening to put a true progressive in the White House, and pull the pendulum back to the left. I just don't see Hillary Clinton exploiting this opportunity.