Letters to the Editor
-
davedavis
You are really stupid if you think some black people were not offended by Obama playing the race card using MLK. I know. He uses MLK, Jesse Jackson when he's before a black crowd but if the Clintons mention either of those men in relation to the new messiah they're "racists." Pathetic!
You can't bring up Hillary's speech before black crowds as an example because you haters have dubbed her as satan, racist and divisive. Do you expect a messiah to behave like satan? I don't.
-
I wouldn't listen...
I wouldn't listen to anything Mike Barnicle had to say. He probably copied it from someone else. It's funny how life is sometimes really good to the cheats. You can plagiarize, get fired and then end up with a great job.
Mike Barnicle wants to be the next Chris Matthews. I used to like Keith OBOBOBerman, but he too has gone to the dark side.
It is unfortunate that these men are so inferior to women. It's probably because they have been denied so many times.
-
Oh, Joan
Joan, I'm not sure why you referred to the dance on Hillary's grave as starting on January 8. It has gone on for over a year. I used to love watching MSNBC with Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews. As Matthews became more and more rude and loud with his Hillary comments I finally (I was slow) realized that these slights to Hillary were very personal. I was astounded that the network would allow him on air. I couldn't believe that someone I held in such esteem, Keith Olbermann, would sit by Matthew's side during debates and primaries. By now I realize that this is what MSNBC is all about. I still keep up with political news through them but I've become more cynical.
However, Joan, while I agree with you about the bias I'm surprised how even you feed into it. You want to defend your observations while using the candidate's talking points. It seems that you soften your article with positive comments toward Obama. In writing about Clinton's win in California, you use it as a teaching point for Obama's organization. You say nothing positive about Clinton's win except in pointing it out as a tactical win. (Not a win of morals, character, strength or the future.) But it was the ending that put your article in perspective. You soften your conclusions by tossing a bone to the "guys" showing them how they can indeed help their candidate.
-
"I can't stand the way HRC was damned if she did and damned if she didn't "
Exactly. My take is different from yours. It doesn't scare me. It makes me want to stand up and fight. I think this particular fight is important. Well, that's the way I feel. I am never going to be a roll over and play dead sort of woman. I think it is actually better to die on your feet than live on your knees.
Not saying you are doing this, but I am saying that when we run from what the Republicans did and when we run from those Hillary-haters whose behavior is based in misogyny, it is a form of giving in to evil.
I have said before and will say again that I can get past Senator Clinton's vote on the war. I have lots of complicated reasons for being able to do this, none of which involve my excusing the war itself. I really think that Hillary Clinton is more likely to beat John McCain and I really think that she will be a better president that Obama, despite her flaws and the power of his rhetoric. That's why I am for her and that's why I will keep supporting her. At first I supported John Edwards because I loved his commitment to the poor and the middle class, but it may be for the best that things worked out as they did. She can win. She is the only one who can win. Put all idealism aside and think about how this country really is and not how we want it to be. There is an ugly underbelly that people are not acknowledging and, while I understand why people don't want to acknowledge it, I live in such a location and have such acquaintences and (I despair!) family members that I cannot help but acknowledge it.
Obama's time will come. His time is not now. I say that from my heart. His time will come and his time should come. Right now, at this perilous, perilous time in our history, we have to beat the Republicans, even if we cannot have a candidate who is as pure as we might prefer. If we do not beat them, we can end up drastically changed. We can end up with the things that we value swept away in the exigencies of an ongoing religious and cultural war fueled by desperation and a lust for oil.
We need a president who has been utterly tempered by fire to produce a blade that can cut. Obama has not that strength. It is in the sharpness and ruthlessness of Hillary that her power lies. It is very things that some fear in her that produce the very reason that she can beat John McCain.
-
@JFSee11: Richard Rodriguez
wrote a wonderful book called "Brown" about identity. I wish every Democrat would read it.
-
aka smith
I'm jumping in here and haven't read far back in the threads--but I'm curious. You write
"I think this particular fight is important. " Why is it important? For personal reasons? For political reasons?
I'm not sure I understand why it is as important to Clinton's supporters why that fight is important to return to. Maybe if I understood that I could stop dreading the next few months and possibly few years.
And where we could get lost is when the battle is for a particular person rather than a particular cause (yes Obama supporters may suffer here too!)? Also, I think that not all of the problems with Hillary and with Bill by the right wingers had to do with mysogeny. For example, I think many of the right wingers were jealous of Bill's charisma and appeal. How many right wingers (ones who I know) talk about Hillary when they say they don't "like" her--its not because they don't like any women or her as a liberated woman--it has more I think to do with the fact that she is complex and difficult to understand. She has an opaque public image. And maybe it makes me a terrible person to say this, but I'm not sure if I understand her either. Or because I find her difficult to understand (particularly certain votes she's made in the senate etc.) it's also hard for me to like her.
Yes, we can elect a person that we don't like. And maybe with time in power people could grow to like her more. But what if that doesn't happen? And I'm not sure I know any more or know now why this fight has to go on. Or if pushing ourselves against instinct to elect someone who we wouldn't normally elect is worth the trouble in the long run. Is there a symbolic battle at stake only--or is there something tangible that matters about this fight?
Just some thoughts.