Letters to the Editor
-
thanks, as usual
you'll surely get the usual bile from obama's automaton supporters...but i truly appreciate it every time you put into words what the rest of us are thinking (though we don't have the platform to say it). i wouldn't vote for mccain...but i'd consider staying home. and i wouldn't for one second feel the burden on my shoulders if roe v. wade was overturned. that burden would sit with those people who assumed that we women (of all ages, it's not just the "older" ones, as I am not one of the older ones) would be okay with not being seen. not anymore we aren't.
-
Pathetic victimology here again, Joan - keep shilling for Hillary
Yes, yes, it's horrible sexism at work. Why, people forget when Ivy-League educated white women were lynched in the past, or had to drink from separate drinking fountains. The slavery and genocidal abuse they endured. Oh, never mind.
Wake up, Joan. Hillary is another Washington insider whose own ambitions are clearly more important to her than party unity or a Democratic victory.
Let's review:
Sits on the board of Walmart.
Voted for the war in Iraq, and when asked if she would vote differently today, knowing what is known about the situation, she refuses to admit she made a mistake.
She's here because her husband was President.
Hired a bungling consultant to "manage her campaign", a consultant whose missteps have been delineated by the press time and again.
Plays the feminist victim entitlement card again and again, despite her $109 million dollar income.
Do we need a privileged white feminist opportunist to run our country? No, we do not.
-
Oh, Joan...
I haven't read or heard anything from you about what Obama should do, in the way of POLICIES to attract white, working class, women (or whatever you want to call Hillary supporters). And why on Earth is Obama responsible for the way Hillary has been treated (or perceived to have been treated?) I've asked this question to you before but you have nothing, concerning his PLATFORM or his POLICIES or his POSITIONS, written or even pointed out concrete examples how Obama's policies leave women behind. Policy-wise, and even Bill Clinton pointed this out, Hillary and Barack are nearly the same, so I'm completely baffled as to why women are "pissed" or angry at Barack for winning. And I'm aghast that some are threatening to vote for McCain. To me, they couldn't have believe in what Hillary was fighting for if they would do that.
Really, I COMPLETELY don't get it, it's as if you and I are leaving on different planets. Please explain.
-
Angry over her mistreatment?
I apparently missed the point in the campaign where Hillary was mistreated.
-
@lulubelle
Obama supporters = "automatons"
Nice.
Standard fare, unfortunately.
I won't wait for the impassioned pleas from Salon's editorial staff for the name-calling against Obama supporters to stop. I realize it's a one-way street here.
-
I repeat:
Hillary lost because her campaign had no strategy. When the wheels started coming off the assumed anointment, all she had were disjointed, reactive (and increasingly lowball) tactics, not a "strategy." The Obama campaign, on the other hand, had a coherent national strategy from the outset. They had accurately analyzed the crazy-quilt Democratic primary "system," and their tactics were deployed in a manner consistent with maxing the returns indicated by the strategy.
She got beat by a superior campaign strategy artfully implemented. McBu'ush, you're next, My Good Friend.
-
Um, were you watching his speech last night?
Obama all but called Hillary the better candidate. Good lord people, just what does he have to do? I am not sure him going around hat in hand to every top female Clinton supporter he can find begging for their forgiveness because Hillary can't run a campaign is a very good idea.
I am not sure why Obama was the one who had to stand up for Hillary when she sure didn't mind using Wright or Bittergate or 'taking him at his word' about being a Muslim when she got the chance. If situations were reversed would we be expecting some kind of mea culpa tour from her?
Is this some kind of bizarre exercise in chivalry that Obama is supposed to make? She took her shot. She lost. All of this talk about not embarrassing her or making sure everyone's feelings aren't hurt seems kind of patronizing to me.
-
Oh, and Joan
Ms. Christian's rant about Obama? That's racist, pure and simple.
That's the face of middle aged white feminism today. Feminists' take-no-prisoners entitlement mentality writ large.
If you can't see that, fess up now, Joan, and at least be an honest bigot when you write this drivel.
-
The beat goes on
I realize it must be very disappointing to see the first woman who had a real shot at the White House lose out. Hell, I'm a man and an Obama supporter, yet at the same time I'm disappointed that the two historic possibilities came up against each other. And I know there was sexism--some of it really flagrant--in some of the campaign coverage and some voters' responses.
But there was also racism, and some of that was deployed or used cynically by the Clinton campaign, yet Obama rose above it and did not take his campaign into the gutter as Clinton did. Much of what now has to be healed--perhaps the vast majority of it--is the result of Clinton's slimy campaigning, saying anything to grasp at another vote, another primary win, regardless of the parameters of common decency or the good of the party (or the country).
So yes, Obama needs to reach out and do what he can to invite Clinton's supporters to support the Democratic ticket, but the larger burden in this regard falls to Clinton. She helped create the rift, she worked vigorously to widen it (as recently as last night!), and now her duty to the party is to help heal it and get the White House back in Democratic hands so we can start moving out of the mess that Bush and Cheney have created--and that McCain seems intent on continuing. It's time to keep everyone's eyes on the prize and do the right thing.
-
Obama and the Hillary followers
This should be a no brainer for real women. McCain has promised to not change anything in the Bush administration policies. Go back to the night he was named the presumptive candidate.
He has promised to select Supreme Court judges who are like Alito and Roberts and Scalia. He is in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade.
That alone is enough to make real straight thinking women vote for the Democratic candidate even though their beloved Hillary, part of the problem, and very established in the Beltway machine, got beat by the only metric used to select the candidate, number of delegates.
All the changing the metrics, and rules, and moving the goal posts won't change the fact that even though she ran a good race, she lost.
If a contestant cannot lose graciously, what kind of winner would that candidate be? Hillary did not display the kind of leadership I desire. She displayed many of the same traits of George W Bush. Her win at all cost and refusal to admit defeat turned me off completely.