Letters to the Editor
-
Thanks, lateagain.
To be straightforward, I am a feminist but not kneejerk. I support Edwards. On the Clintons: Like her. Can't stand him. I think he is her Achille's Heel -- with an emphasis on heel. What a drama that marriage, huh?
I actually mentioned in a letter to Joan's column shortly after New Hampshire that I wished she would send him back to New York. Only I wasn't so polite. I believe I said "drop kick him." I believe he could be hurting rather than helping her campaign. He reminds me of an old opera clip I was watching recently when Placido Domingo moved his shoulder right in front of the female singer, obscuring her face. Arrogant jerk! Recently Hillary told us that she had found her voice. Too bad that Bill thinks it is his.
-
Not to excuse Bill's bad, but....
I'm disgusted with Bill, too, but the charge that he did Obama an injustice "solely to help his wife win" seems pure projection. Look how red he was in the face. We think he's too smart to believe what he said, but the idea that South Carolina's grapes are sour, very sour, being black, is just the kind of intellectually dishonest thinking that would attend his emotional upset after Hillary's loss. Reportedly, he's since backed off. Nice Bill, goooood Bill [pat, pat, scratch behind his ears].
-
@ Xlp Thlplylp
Short version: Hearsay is generally not acceptable.
You can spout all you want, but remember that when you post your opinion, people have a right to ask you to post some proof that would make them take you seriously. Parroting Glenn is not proof.
-
@ Cassia Bella
Obama's acknowledged youthful drug use stands in contrast to unacknowledged drug use by the last two Presidents
Different times. Younger voters. Obama is counting on those younger voters.
I am not complaining about his drug use. I am just saying that some people might see it as a character flaw and still not be one bit racist about it.
Me? I'm one of those legalize marijuana nuts. I have known many people who used cocaine. Some actually never use now. There is a difference between a casual drug user and an addictive personality.
Dry drunks (ala GWB) are the worst.
-
ginamc
Like you, I care about the facts in this election. To go through a few points--what happened in Nevada that makes you so angry at Obama?
I have read this coverage:
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/01/18/nevada-turns-ugly-clinton-campaign-alleges-voter-intimidation-by-obama-organizers/
which alleges that it was union people--not people who are working for Obama who used intimidation. Clinton's supporters were part of a lawsuit which potentially could have disenfranchised some of her own Latino supporters. When the culinary union ran an ad criticizing Clinton Obama said he would repudiate the ad only when Clinton repudiated the lawsuit--so for me, I don't understand the difference? Both the lawsuit and the union ad were trying to push voters one way or another, but you sound angry and bitter at only one of the candidates.
(Here is someone's story of voter intimidation by Clinton supporters, if this counts too http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2746911)
2. There is also this situation relating to Clinton supporters and the Obama is a muslim charge (other than Bob Kerry's remarks which he apologized for earlier in her campaign)
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/05/clinton_campaign_volunteer_out.html
3. How is it "racist" to call Obama unqualified? Well, the word unqualified and lightweight has come up a lot in his campaign. He has worked in public service all of his life, just as Clinton has. He has been a civil rights attorney, worked in poor communities, and speaks about Latino wages on his website (currently lower than white or black wages at 57 cents per dollar for a white male:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/PovertyFactSheet.pdf
He is a Harvard constitutional law professor who has also served twelve years in elected office, longer than Clinton or Edwards. Both Clinton and Edwards ran or considered running for president after one term in the Senate, yet no one called "lightweights" at their presidential ambitions. Reagan had eight years as governor. Lincoln had two terms in the Illinois Senate and one term in the House of Representatives before being elected President. Sometimes calling a person unqualified even though they have many accomplishments can be a form of discrimination. I'm not saying that you're doing this, but that some people can and do.
* * *
If you have made up your mind on these issues, I understand. But most Americans surveyed find that Obama and Clinton are similar in their views on the issues, and they are roughly similarly qualified to be president, if elected.
If you've made up your mind on which candidate you prefer, this is fine, but I don't quite understand the rancor.....and if Obama is the Democratic nominee would you still decide not to vote for him? Is this an indication of a problem between different communities, or is this personally based on his take on the issues? Were YOU intimidated in Nevada?
I'm just trying to follow what you're saying.
-
For the millionth time...
The issue isn't whether Obama won big in SC because he is an African-American--no doubt that had much to do with the MARGIN of his victory--or whether this will translate nationally--it won't, not on his ethnicity at least--but rather that by pointing this all out, Clinton was basically saying that Obama wasn't just a candidate who just happened to be African-American (and who likely benefitted from this fact in this particular primary), but rather that he is THE "African-American candidate", whose appeal lies mainly among African-Americans (or insufficiently among non-African-Americans), and thus has a limited national appeal in both the primaries and general election. I.e., according to Clinton, there's nothing wrong with his being African-American or even with African-Americans supporting him because of this, but there is something wrong from an electoral perpective if this is his primary (heh) appeal, which Clinton appears to also be saying.
I find it hard to view this as anything but a racially-charged if not outright racist remark. I.e. not only can't Obama win just on the basis of being African-American (which I suppose is true but entirely besides the point and quite disengenuous given that he HASN'T run on being African-American), but he quite possibly can't win BECAUSE he's African-American. So his remarks were doubly racist (if not triply so given the implications in them about African-American voters). And all this from the man who loved being called the "First Black President" and proudly located his offices in the heart of Harlem. Shameful, and impossible to honestly interpret any other way.
All the more bizarre given that Obama won the overwhelmingly white Iowa, is catching up in states with smaller percentages of African-American, and is almost even with Hillary in the national polls. Was that true of Jesse Jackson? As a former law professor, Clinton should have known better than to try to pull this sort of logical trick on an already hostile media and public.
And Mike Huckabee won the governship of Arkansas. Does that make Clinton a dominionist luddite charlatan too, or at least a second or third-tier presidential candidate with only limited regional appeal who just lucked into the presidency--twice? How stupid does he think we are?