Letters to the Editor
-
Joan- Passive agressive is not honest
So please do not tell me to have a good week-end.
Once again, say what you mean.
I think you duped us in your earlier post, in order to make your point, and I think that is dishonest.
Perhaps you did not, or perhaps you did so unintentioanlly, but I think you had the quote and did not print it. it is more than a little curious that you have paraphrased the quote in an article one day, and then misinterpreted the quote in an article the next day.
I do not draw such inferences lightly. I am serious when I state this.
I do know that yesterday I found it curious that you did not have the Brazile quote leading into the colloquy under discussion in the article.
And, I found your response strange, but acceptable, as I responded, unti I read today's commentary.
I have always shown respect for posters and letter writers, and I have always expected the same in return.
I feel betrayed by Salon over the past two days.
Opportunities for honest discourse rest upon a fair degree of trust and reciprocity.
You do not have to agree with me, but at least show some integrity and a modicum of respect for the words of others.
Seems to me that is not too much to ask.
I wish you no ill will, but I do expect more. Words mean something.
-
so your not the "left" shawn?
You mean to tell me all this time you ARE a republcain who comes to divde and conquer? A sabotuer? No. Can't be. I won't believe you are not a republcain who comes here to stir up trouble and destroy your nation. i can't believe that.
he he he.
when all else fails, right shawn? whine cry and complain. enjoy that. It's all you republcains have left for the next thrity years. Keep telling yourself the gop is great and will win in november. The bigger they are (ego), the harder they fall
-
Sorry for the double negative:
I cannot see why you don't see that PTG is a racist. Surely you see this. Surely you are not so stuck in that sort of the enemy of my enemy is my friend sort of stuff.
How can you defend that vile talk, let alone make common cause with it.
It this person is truly in social work then I shudder to think how she must condescend to people of color, indeed all people. You know, social work is full of abusing sociopaths as it is. It doesn't need any racists and truly if you think it is an acceptable part of being a Democrat to think what she says is fine, then by God, maybe you are a Republican troll!
-
Now you see it don't ya Smith?
This is the kind of shit we have to put up with.
-
Someone down below said that he had gradually (in a turnabout) come to support Clinton over Obama ...
I don't recall if, like me, he had been an Edwards supporter (I think so)... anyway.
Me too. Not because I like her particularly (though in between "racist" eruptions, I found that I did come to like her better, and to respect her -- both her grit but -- more importantly -- her ability to communicate her goals/intentions/plans.
That ability to communicate -- specifically -- was what I appreciated about Edwards and I still believe that being able to communicate -- the bad news as well as the good as well -- I guess -- the inspirational -- is going to be essential to the next president.
Anyone else remember the "credibility gap"? remember the "generation gap"? boy, are we poised for both unless we've got a real leader, who is willing to both speak so "we" feel heard and considered, but also to educate us so we don't grow so restless and dissatisfied that we "throw the baby out with the bath water" in 4 years or sooner by our lack of support (see Carter)
I recall the first 6 months of the Bush first term vividly -- the GOP and AEI had obviously had teams working on "what we do first, second, third, etc." for every government agency ... they had serious, terrifying game plan(s) ... they rolled back everything they could simply by defunding or fiat.
We need to be similarly prepared if (Mother of God) we are fortunate enough to prevail.
That fits Hillary's style and experience. Obama -- not so much.
I'm not arguing for anyone to support Hillary. I'm just saying that those are the reasons I intended to vote for Hillary at my caucus, but I had heavy snow on my driveway and it was snowing more on an icy night ... and no, I didn't care enough ..
-
Some Editoral responsibility in reigning in this flamming....Joan, can't you help us out?
I find it odd that the editor of Salon can't exert some journalist effort in tagging some letters as an editor STAR?
I thought the role of an editor was to sift thru and focus the debate on a topic. Unfortunately without that this forum has become about flaming and name calling.
Joan might get a bit more respect if she tags some critical posts as thoughtful so that we could discuss some points. Since she claims to read every post, I am not sure what the problem is.
-
HIllary's Statement
I see nothing wrong with Hillary's statement. She was talking about a demographic, which is blue collar whites, especially in swing states.
I am SO SICK of everyone making such a big deal about race. I do feel that Obama has spent a lot of energy surrounding himself with angry black people, including his wife and pastor, in an effort to be more a part of the AA experience.
Hillary on the other hand, is just trying to stay in the game. She has a valid point. Working class whites in swing states have elected a lot of presidents. Obama has an interesting case before him. He might win, but he is a higher risk than Clinton -- all you have to do is look at the polls!
-
@ Shawn
The OTHER 40% of blacks who are not registered (and who tend to be blue collar blacks) are not represented by the ones who are registered (who tend to have higher incomes. No one talks about those unregistered blue collar/lower middle class blacks (who are the majority of blacks in America). Some of them ARE pro-Hilary. They are not invested in the process, or just are too apathetic to vote (like many of the blue collar whites- blue collars of ALL races vote in far smaller percentages than those of higher income and/or other notes), or they have issues like time and jobs that get in the way.
Some of it is survival. Elections are on Tuesdays. When you are paid by the hour, and you commute, it is easy to let voting slide. We talk as if we know about these groups, (and as if group means destiny) we talk about 90% of blacks as if that means something without the caveat "registered". In some urban areas, over 60% of blacks are unregistered. To equate registered voters with ALL is not a good idea.
More than 40% of the entire legal population is NOT registered. We know nothing of these people's opinnions because the National Election Survey does not question them, and the they avoid phone polls (I do too, which is what makes polls dubious.)
McCain is reaching out to the unregistered black and white blue collar workers. Shouldn't Dems do the same?
Race is NOT an accurate proxy. Neither is class.
And economics is not all. We can't just show people how they will be better off with a Democrat. They need to feel that they are part of something bigger.
The problem is the media likes to stir stuff. If they talked about registered versus unregistered, that would quell some of this. Registered blacks right now tend to have certain things in common (more religious or more educated, more investment in the system). What happens if we get up to 80% of the US population overall registered? SOme of these differences will disapear.
People are more alike than diffent.