Letters to the Editor
-
Female Democrat Against Clinton Candidacy
I resent the implication that I should support Clinton because we both are female. Her candidacy does not represent a step forward, but a comfy resettlement into big-business, accomodationist, DLC-moneyed business as usual.
I support John Edwards, who actually speaks like a Democrat.
Deborah Chasteen
-
I agree with Deb
I, too, am a feminist who supports John Edwards.
-
HIllary vs the men
I thought this was the best debate so far and good questions. If Senator Clinton doe win in the poimaries, she is will to have to stand up to a nasty republican campaign if it is Guiallni.
She stood up well, showing women how to deal with this kind of crap that we put up wiht all the time. I cringe everytime I here a male commnetator use the word "strident" in referecne to Hillary. What the male counterpart to that term? However, as a woman, I will not be driven to vote for her just becaseu she is attacked or is a woman. Seh di dnot anser the questions and I feel Obama has more to offer and can win a general election.
-
Clinton wants it both ways.
She wants credit for breaking feminist ground, and she wants to use her gender as cover when things get rough.
Oh yes, and she stalls, contradicts herself, and outright lies when caught out. Clearly, all very important qualifications for the Presidency.
I'll (reluctantly) vote for her is she gets the nomination. I suspect she'll even win (a Pyrrhic victory) in November 2008 should that happen.
-
And if she can't take it...
...she should stop dishing it out. I believe wholeheartedly in gender equality. I believe everyone should be treated equally, regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc. But being treated equal means you don't get to hide behind race, gender or orientation when things don't go your way. And, really, what's the alternative to making her fight for the nomination? Going easy on her? Being soft? Letting her win? Because she's a woman? Oh yeah, that's going to advance the cause of feminism. Maybe Tim Russert should have intervened at some point. "Hey, hey, hey. Guys, guys. Go easy on her, huh? After all, she's just a chick."
She wasn't "piled on" because she's a woman. It's because she's a lousy candidate.
-
Hillary v. Everybody
It's not just that the candidates went after Clinton, it was the journalists moderating the event asked them to (and they did, happily). In the press, there's a constant drumbeat against Hillary Clinton (and at the same time an apparent need to make her inevitable).
Last election, the mainstream press hated Dean. He was crazy. His wife wanted to keep on being a doctor. He was dangerous. Kerry was the electable one--until he actually got the nomination. Then there was no end of ridicule in store for him. And does anyone need a reminder of what happened in 2000? It will be the same next time around. The Democrats should not help the Republicans and the press sharpen their knives. Hilary Clinton is a DNC triangulator--we know this. Maybe if the other candidates would get the subject off of her and onto some more interesting message of their own, they'd gain some traction. You don't make people forget about Hillary Clinton by constantly talking about her, though. There's a reason that one of the first rules of advertising is that you don't mention the other guy's name.
-
I agree she can take it -- I also agree she deserves it.
The advantage of this amazingly long debate year is that candidates may run out of waffling points, and Hillary seems to have done that.
I think, in terms of her using Bill's sort of roundabouts, she's falling into the same trap Gary Wills pointed out in Nixon Agonistes, i.e., that Nixon thought Eisenhower was politically shrewd and thought he could play the same game and that what he never understood was that Eisenhower was a political genius and that if you weren't one too, you were gonna get caught. (Oh yeah, Old Ike was just dear Old Uncle Fudd -- who only 7 years before had juggled the insane egos of DeGaulle, Montgomery, and Patton and managed to pull off the most complex military operation in history while each one was yammering and threatening about how HE should be in charge.)
I don't doubt that Hillary is as smart as Bill, but she's NOT the political genius he was.
There are more than a few women in congress and in state houses I would GLADLY vote for, but Hillary is not one of them. If she takes the nomination, I WILL VOTE for her, albeit reluctantly. Something brittle and duplicitous and sleazily opportunistic going on with her. Duplicitous and sleazily opportunistic is, of course, standard issue among politicans, but brittle is not a good thing.
I predicted more than three months ago that once in the booth, those who publicly say "I have no problem with a black man or a woman as prez" would vote for John Edwards." That was a very cynical prediction and I wasn't taking a position on a favorite because I didn't know who was what.
Now I add to that "Any one who really would like to see some changes in the legalized bribery system, would like to see the fascist aspects diminished (fascism -- without the Nazi spin -- in its literal sense -- a merger between state and corporations and howdy there) and would like a self-made certified dragon-killer to do the job will, I think, also vote for Edwards.
(Sorry to see Mike Gravel absent due to the press deciding his viewpoints weren't popular enough to be heard. So much for the liberal press.)
-
Lean cuisine s'il vous plait
Oh please. Russert was, if anything, making up for lost time.
Or does the Clinton campaign only have a problem with "the media" when it does not pay broadsheet-broadcast homage to Clinton's inevitability?
We find Salon's campaign coverage to be high fiber, low bullshit. It's the exception to the rule.
If you prefer syrupy Clinton fawning along with lots of fatty Obama/Edwards etc. negativity, dine at the New York Times, Washington Post or TPM Election Clinton, where the menu never changes.
-
This is America
I'm leaning strongly towards Dodd in the primaries, although I also like Biden and feel Edwards would be a strong candidate. In other words, I haven't made a definite decision yet. I read what these candidates say. I watch the debates to hear their views and guage the way they present themselves.
Hillary Clinton was annointed not only the front runner but the Democratic candidate from the moment she announced. Tuesday night's debate highlight stark contrasts between the candidates. Naturally Clinton was singled by the others for being the front runner peddling murky and conflicting positions on the major issues. Her weaknesses were put on glaring disply (as were those of that other media darling Barak Obama who looked weak and floundering). The strengths of several of the others came to the forefront.
Unfortunately, the only thing most people will talk about is the clinton caampaign supplied notion that she was attacked for being a women. I don't hear anyone talking abut Joe biden's excellent (and very important) comparison and connection of Iran and Pakistan (a concept Clinton looked startled by before she jumped in with "I agree with Joe...although her "agreement with Joe" didn't mesh too well with her own answer to the question). Unfortunately no one is talking about the important point that other candidates actually scored in that debate. Its all How did Clinton perform? How did Obama perform? Now the clinton campaign has opened the door for a real tabloid campaign. Unfortunately a tabloid campaign is what most people can understand and respond to. Unfortunately we'll get stuck with a continuation of the toxic, divisive, paranoid Clinton/Bush years.
Unfortunately, this is America.