Letters to the Editor
-
I couldn't believe it!!!
I thought the article by Camille Paglia, 'Hillary without Tears" was a great representation of how I have felt about the Clinton machine for years. I think she hit the nail on the head when describing Hillary's displayed flow with the wind attitude on politics and her drive for personal gain versus what is best for our country. I was so impressed by this article that I just "couldn't believe it" when at the end Ms. Paglia said that she would vote for Hillary just because she wanted a Democrat in office. If that is not the most backward thinking thing I have read in a long time, I don't know what is. Why write an article about how hosed up Hillary is and then say you are going to vote for her. Thats the kind of thinking that places unfit people in positions of power. Rethink your choice Camille.
That is totally wrong!!!
-
Great Article
Camille,
I will vote Republican for the same reason you will choose a Democrat. However, your article was extremely insightful and quite enjoyable. And although Obama and would not agree on much, I believe he is a genuine article and a very sincere person. Hey, I like the guy. Thanks again for the insight.
-
Throw the Babies out with the Bath Water
Hi Camille,
Here are some of the words you use to describe the Clintons: warren-riddled, barracuda, sneering, morally superior, feminazi, contemptuous, condescending, Nixonian, obsessive, and Machiavellian. I hate to thow these words back at you, but how can you vote for them, after so accurately deconstructing their vapid need to be in our faces twenty four ours a day. To paraphrase overeaters anonymous, these people live to campaign, not campaign to live. If the Democrats are going to nominate someone with such debased bona fides, then isn't it possible that "our party" has lost its' way, and that maybe we should go searching for a new party. I'm tired of voting for second rate Democrats, just to keep Scalia clones off the Court. Perhaps it's time to throw the two babies out with the bath water and start over...
Quentin
-
Camille Paglia on Hillary's view of masculinity
Camille hits the nail on the head every time...i find myself reading along and saying yes...yes...Her writing is crystal clear and right on target,and what a beautiful writing style she has...very nice..Thank you.
-
@LivingGreen
Your point is well taken and speaks well of you as an individual. I apologize for the "chess" metaphor. But national leadership often requires dispassionate analysis. That's the job of a commander in chief.
Regarding "blowback", international relations is a continual process of blowback. You could easily follow the trail of 9/11 back to FDR or further. To halt it at Afghanistan and the 1980's is random. This is the way the world works. I wish it didn't. I wish we could start fresh.
Again (and it's not a point of logical deduction but of reasoned inference) there is no way to prove that the invasion of Iraq prevented further 9/11's but the fact is we haven't been hit.
-
Contemptuous condescension??
"Contemptuous condescension seems to be Hillary's default mode with any male who criticizes her or stands in her way."
Substitute Bush for Hillary and his for her and this passage could easily refer to the current President. This administration goes after anyone (cabinet members, close advisors, foreign leaders, important allies, etc) who disagrees like an attack dog on steroids. A good example of this self defeating behavior would be Turkey's response to our heavy handed demands to use their territory in the Iraq invasion. They told us to shove it and our relations with this very important ally and NATO member have since deteriated. Another example would be Armitage's threat to "bomb Pakistan into the stone age" if they didn't do as we said. That's how the Bush administration wins friends! I don't think Hillary will be this foolish in her relations with people important to our country, domestically or foreign. She will be strong in defending our interests but careful in how she goes about doing same. She understands diplomacy much better than Bush's testostrone charged neocons!
-
hillary without tears
Another clinton who has no tears is that homely chelsea...how can that girl face people when she knows they'e thinking about her dad/monica. has she no shame? is she a carbon copy of her mother? this is why she doesn't talk to the press, she knows what they'll ask her about her parents and their lies, and their immorality. Shame, but i guess they brainwashed her plenty otherwise she couldn't show her homely face in public without embarrassment. I'm embarassed of clinton and i don't even know him.
-
Camille Paglia Mysoginist
Still harping on the old topics. Please accept the fact that all women are not your mother and your poor neotiation of the oedipal conflict is no reason to turn off your brain, Ms. Paglia.
-
I smell an [unchanged] politician...
This whole real estate transaction between Obama and Tony Rezko that barely caught notice earlier this year, but which ABC has reopened today as Mr. Rezko prepares for trial on influence peddling charges in the cesspool that is Illinois politics, just cries out for more investigation.
Here’s what I want to know: what exactly was "the deal"? What was the financial value of the favor this guy did for Obama? Obama made a big gesture out of taking Rezko’s tainted political contributions (not small sums, by the way -- Rezko has friends and pakcaged hundreds of thousands in campain contributions for Obama...) and giving them away to charity, as if that made everything right. Has he also in any way repaid the favor this real estate transaction represents??
Based on the facts that are out there, it would appear that Obama wanted to buy a house which had an adjacent lot next door owned by the same seller. The seller insisted on selling the house and additional lot in a single deal. Obama could not come up with the $625,000 needed to purchase the adjacent lot so Obama APPROACHED Rezko “for advice”. And Rezko happily offered much more than just advice -- he had his wife buy the adjacent lot herself. [This happens ALL THE TIME to non-politicians, right? You don’t have enough money to buy a new house so a political fund raiser/real estate developer appears on the scene with the cash to become your partner on the deal. Right? Yeah, right, Mr. Candidate of Change.]
But here’s where it really starts to get interesting. Obama received a $300,000 discount on the price of the house but Mrs. Rezko paid the full asking price for the land next door. Obama explained this awkward detail by saying that the adjacent parcel had "another offer" on it which is why it sold for full price while Obama got a break off the asking the price of the house because it had no other offers.
But this explanation makes no sense since the whole problem in the first place was that the seller insisted on selling the 2 properties in a single sale -- so having another offer on just one of the parcels was of NO value to the seller. Once Obama and Rezko agreed to buy the house and adjacent lot together as a single transaction, which is what the seller was selling, presumably they were free to divide the $300,000 discount on the total purchase price between them any way they wanted. Why did Obama get the full $300,000 discount on his piece of what was by definition a joint property purchase? Shouldn’t he have shared some portion of this savings with Rezko – after all Rezko came to his rescue and enabled him to buy the house in the first place? This, too, happens to non-politicians all the time, right? Right??? Are you listening to me Mr. Candidate of Change??
Next, Rezko sells the Obamas a piece of the adjacent parcel for $104,500. [Non-politicians also get THIS kind of favor all the time too, don't they?? You want to add on to your house and your neighbor, who has just bought the adjacent parcel next door presumably as an investment, readily breaks up his parcel and sells off a strip to you? Right? Yeah, right, Mr. Candidate of Change.]
Obama insists the price he paid for the “strip” was fair market value. Was there an appraisal to back this up? Doubt it. And here’s the most important question of all: What has become of the remainder of the adjacent parcel? Has it been sold? Built on? Or is it just basically a large back yard for the Obamas???
However you slice it, it looks to me like Mr. Rezko made a gift to the Obamas(including Mrs. Sanctimonius Obama, Esq., who also should have known better), probably worth tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Inquiring minds want to know, media. Why don’t you get back on this case?