Letters to the Editor
-
Where have you been?
Where have you been?
I am sincerely sorry for the shooting of the father of a star player on your daughter's high school basketball team. It should be a national story.
In addition, please tell us your views about the Clinton's craziness over the last several days.
How can you have been so passionate about the HRC pity party in New Hampshire and not have a single comment about - where do I start? - Gloria Steinem, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Charlie Rangel,Bobcat Johnson, and Richard Cohen? An all-star attack posse that has made Karl Rove and Lee Atwater look like the Little Sisters of the Poor?
Please fast forward in your imagination to a convention nominating HRC, and walk us through how the democratic base will be energized because she is our choice rather than Obama, how independents will flock to us in the general election because she is our choice rather than Obama, and how the republicans will be demoralized because Senator Clinton is our choice rather than Obama.
Give me a woman or man (black or white) who is the best candidate, and let the symbolism of breaking through barriers handle itself.
-
Williams,Russert,Povich,Springer,Beck...
this is what commercial "journalism" brings us. I am embarrassed and infuriated for us all.
-
Unbearable Hacks
Williams and Russert are myopic and dull stuffed suits. They add nothing to the political discussion, but to paraphrase Churchill, every word they say subtracts from the sum total of human knowledge. Watching them, I felt a sense of fury that our debates are being handled by such self-important hacks. And wondered what if we had someone like Kathy Griffin asking, "Who should play you in the movie of your life?" and other questions that might, through comedy and the unexpected, reveal the candidates more and at the very least lift us out of the miasma of ponderous pundit pedantry.
-
I was not impressed with either Clinton or Obama both failed to confront race or gender
I do not understand how as a nation we believe it is progressive to avoid candid and authentic discourse about race and gender.
I do not understand how deflection and avoidance is viewed as 'not taking the bait'..
I do not understand how a series of comments which surfaced serious concerns is somehow view by you Joan as a game the candidates seek not to play. An excercise and game both had no problem of turning up the volume when it suited thier respective campaign's script..
I am troubled that pundits like you think 2 of our leaders now lead by avoidance and deflection. Your posture tragically allows our country to continue in it's denial about serious racial and gender concerns.
Joan your commentary does not affirm leadership instead it rewards the failure of leadership. Your commentary does not improve the lives of many who are confronted daily with reality of life in a country where anger and hopelessness lead to a daughter's father being shot at your kid's school.
Leadership failure does trickle down into cities which do not investigate the murders of victims that look like me, your affirmation of failed leadership creates a society where violence is an option for conflict resolution.
But wait I am talking about real issues how dare I even try to connect the events at your child's school with the failed leadership of Hillary and Obama..
Foolish me I will just sit back and a write a column lamenting why our leaders should avoid being leaders..Why take the bait to write something different..
-
taking the bait
I'm glad that though the candidates are not taking questions on race or gender anymore, that salon readers can still take the bait.
So fitting my mouth around that hook: I just wanted to say that I have thought over the past day or two that (not to be paranoid about the right wing news network) but did anyone notice it was Fox who framed the questions that Clinton awkwardly answered last week? It just strikes me that a clever reporter can get even a professional to trip over their tongue.
And on another note: has anyone else heard that McCain thinks the American people will be fine with another 50-100 years occupying Iraq? I heard it on NPR. And today I read that Huckabee thinks the constitution should be amended to be more pleasing to Jesus? Merciful Jesus, I hope Democrats get smart about their squabbles and vote for the best candidate regardless of labels and packaging.
-
OOWITUS and OOBITUS?
They are seeking the Presidency, also known as the POTUS, but they are not seeking the 'Office of Women in the US' or 'Office of Blacks in the US'. Wouldn't that be OOWITUS, or the OOBITUS? That would be weird huh?
(Apologies to the very inspiring Cary Tennis)
-e.m.
-
dolores: I enjoy reading your posts on this site more than any others and yes I know you are a white female
but despite the venom people have for me on this site it really does not matter..
Thanks for taking the bait;-)
-
Usual Hillary BS
The three of us are here because of Dr. King," she continued, noting that "as a woman" she is also a beneficiary of the civil rights movement.
The prohibition against discrimination on grounds of sex was added to the Civil Rights Act 1964 by Howard Smith, a reactionary Southern Democrat who was strongly opposed to the Civil Rights Act and hoped that this addition would help to sink the bill.
Johnson was immensely courageous in forcing the bill through, knowing as he said that "this will cost us the South for a generation", which turned out to be pretty much true, as without the neorepublican southern white vote we would have had none of the ultrarightist republican presidents of recent years.
The Kennedys had wanted to pass a Civil Rights Bill that would invalidate the Jim Crow laws, but after the experience of having to use federal martials to open up state universities in Mississippi and Alabama to black Americans, and to protect the freedom riders, they were extremely concerned that such legislation would be almost unenforceable without a military occupation of the South, which itself provided a large proportion of the armed forces.
It is easy to forget how close the US approached to another Civil War in the 1960's.
ML King certainly played an important role in raising racial awareness, though interestingly he did not participate in the Bloody Sunday march which was probably a key turning point in the effort to get public support for the Civil Rights movement and it was carried out against his wishes after he had met with Lyndon Johnson and agreed to try to delay the march.
King certainly played an important role in the Civil Rights movement, but so did numerous other less known black and white activists. King's prominence is probably all the greater, though, thanks to the Nobel Committee which awarded him the Peace Prize in 1964 because he advocated nonviolence in the style of Ghandhi, which was a new departure for the US.
I don't get the impression that Hillary knows that much about the history of the Civil Rights movement, and this is another reason to look for another candidate.