Letters to the Editor
-
Obama supporters who continue to disrespect Hillary do so at their own peril...
I'm going to need to stop reading blogs and watching television for a while. It is time for getting back to good novels,gardening,cooking for friends and local politics. This campaign cycle has really been bad for my mental health and my belief in this country.Particulary when it comes to the youth as represented online.What a mean bunch.
I think I have made up my mind what I am going to do and I would not be surprised if other like minded women have come to the same conclusion. I cannot find it in myself to reward the behavior of the Obama campaign,it's supporters,the media and the bully blogger boyz.
I cannot support a party or candidate that took it upon themselves to take down the only successful Democrats of my lifetime. They have done it using Republican lies,sexism and racial threats (ie"you are a racist it you prefer another candidate")Party leaders out of their own cynical self-interest(they can't be reelected without the AA vote)have given no factual push back. Women and their pride in the first women candidate have been threatened,bullied,ignored,belittled, marginalized.Our candidate has been unfairly demonized in the most vulgar and vaguely and sometimes not so vaguely sexually threatening ways.I can't forgive any of it. Call me a stubborn,old, Irish, women who holds grudges but I won't reward it.
There will be a great effort to make women worry about Supreme Court nominations. I'm tempted to just say let the post feminists worry about that.They have been so happy to go along with the boys, let's just see where that will get them in the long run. I wish each would take a long hard look at themselves and ask this question, " Am I intimidated by the backlash that will come if I declare myself interested in women's rights?"
By all accounts the Democrats will enjoy increased majorities in both the House and the Senate regardless of who wins the presidency. If they are unable to block a McCain appointment who would end Roe vs Wade then we will know just how committed Democrats are to women's rights.
-
this article
was fantastic, it's really cool to read about the behind doors aspect of political campaigning.
this letter thread? Is depressing as hell.
-
What would it take for Clinton to concede?
In the game of chess, when the outcome of the endgame is perceived—often still with dozens of moves left to make—the player who recognizes his chances of winning to be very small usually concedes by toppling his queen. The outcome is never inexorable, since the losing player’s opponent can always make some devastating blunder. That is why the act of concession is an act of grace. Not only is it an acknowledgement of the superiority of the winner—and such a conclusion is very humiliating since, in chess, a loss is the result of being intellectually bested, without any extenuation whatsoever to salve one’s ego—but it’s also a sort of salute. The loser says “Not only did you play a better game up to this point, but you’ve earned enough of my respect that it would be unbecoming of me to bank on or hope for a stupid mistake on your part”.
Politics is not chess, of course. The outcome hardly depends solely on the intellect of the participants; instead, it’s also driven by the heated passions of outsiders, including those reporting on the game, those who have a stake in prolonging a spectacular competition. And, in this event, it’s not impossible that some irrelevant circumstance will arise to hurt one of the candidates; nor is it unheard of to lobby for a late-in-the-game change of rules, even though both candidates have agreed in advance to the game’s parameters.
However, even in politics, there comes a time when it’s particularly ungraceful (maybe even disgraceful) to hope one’s opponent stumbles. And even in politics, at some point, strong-arming for a change in the rules is recognized as a desperate and illegitimate tactic. Our enthusiasm for this Presidential race has already waned, and the game itself has been sullied. The responsibility for this lies squarely in the Clinton camp. It is she who, perfectly consonant with our collective lower instinct to win at any cost, embarked upon a “kitchen-sink strategy”. One can make a strong case that she has deliberately sought to divide the party along lines of race and gender. At any rate, she certainly has not attempted to discourage this devolution, and this exemplifies why she should never, ever represent the party, let alone lead the country. She views victory as the result of dividing, not of unifying people. She accepts the wisdom that politics is a dirty game, and without compunction, is willing to wallow in its mires.
We democrats are supposed to embrace progressive ideals. We ought not to be tethered to ideas that have been thoroughly discredited over the past eight years—among them, the notion that ends justify means. Or that the only thing that matters is whether you win or lose, how you play the game be damned. These are Bushian principles that have been used to rationalize the abnegation of our Civil Liberties, that justify torture of our enemies and have therefore made us unwitting torturers, and that have resulted in a complete loss of faith in the basic decency of our leaders. We really ought to attempt to restore the integrity of the game itself.
-
markworthi for vp!
Very well said indeed.
-
Voters vs Voters
In most states, during a general election, the Democrats usually get the most votes in the bigger population centers and college towns. When the Republicans come out to vote in bigger numbers they outnumber Dems in the rural, less populated areas. So even in the big states like Cali, that in a demo primary Clinton won, Obama carried the areas where the Democratic vote will be in a general election.
Also, I'm sensing a trend on this site...looks like a lot of Obama supporters don't like Clinton's policies or the way she ran her campaign...
With a lot of the Clinton supporters, their dislike seems to be more of Obama supporters than a dislike of Obama himself.