Letters to the Editor
-
Lord what's wrong!
There sure is a whole lotta ugly goin' on!
-
Uhmm
This from the man who supposedly called his wife the C-word? McCain might want to refrain from sexist attacks...
-
live
live from saturday night:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/11/saturday-night-lives-mess_n_101177.html
-
If McCain succeeds...
If McCain succeeds in convincing anyone to vote for him through his sudden chivalrous conversion to erstwhile Hillary supporter, then they deserve all the phony "straight talk" they get.
-
I agree with Ted Kennedy
I don't think two Senators from states the Democrats will win in November make a good ticket. I'd say the same thing if Hillary Clinton were the nominee. Clinton can do far more for the Democrats as the majority leader in the Senate once the terrible Mr. Reed moves on. Reed has done a poor job, IMO.
There was an interesting roundtable discussion on This Week yesterday regarding potential VPs.
-
A Simple Analogy
Walsh on Clinton is like Kristol on Iraq.
You just blew it on a massive scale. Now it's time to sit down and shut up. No rational person cares what you have to say, loser.
-
Excuse me Joan for diverging from your views
But just what that Senator Kennedy said, should Obama have to defuse?
-
Well, at least we're focusing on the proper things, right?
I mean, it's far more vital to concern ourselves with whether Senator Obama, who has been a class act all week, will show sufficient deference to the candidate he's just beaten than with Senator Clinton's despicable, George Wallace-style rhetoric insisting her party's presumptive nominee can't win the votes of "hardworking whites."
Once again the double standard raises its head(s). Obama's obligation to "discourage disrespect" toward his vanquished opponent is precisely proportional to the respect she and her surrogates show him; given the way she has striven to tear him down by dividing Americans along racial and class lines, he owes her not one jot more. Any additional graciousness he displays will simply demonstrate that much further why he, and not she, deserves to be the Democratic nominee.
(And Senator Kennedy's accurate representation of her campaign as insufficiently appealing to the better angels of our natures, and of Senator Clinton as thus a poor fit as a running mate for Obama, was not disrespectful. If she doesn't like that characterization, perhaps she should have thought of that before she allowed her campaign to become a tragic betrayal of the Clinton legacy. When one scorches the earth, one has no right to complain that the charred, denuded trees now provide no shade from the hot sun.)
-
A minor criticism of Joan's column
Joan Walsh: "I have occasionally wished Obama himself would say something about the often-sexist viciousness Clinton has faced, but it's probably too much to ask in a campaign this contentious. Certainly Ted Kennedy didn't help Obama on Friday when he said Clinton wasn't a good candidate to be Obama's running mate and suggested that she wasn't "in tune with his appeal for the nobler aspirations" of the American people."
This transition in your writing makes it sound like Kennedy said something sexist.
Otherwise, point taken -- Kennedy seems to have not received the memo on reaching out to Clinton supporters at this crucial time. Heck, even Karl Rove is saying that Obama's campaign should make nice (reported in your Five Things section -- with a witty response from an Obama manager that trusting Rove is like taking health advice from a mortician).
Regarding the "Fatal Attraction" comparison, wasn't that a week or two ago? Why is McCain's camp bringing it up now? I remember hearing that commentator's Glenn Close comparison and knowing it would backfire. I didn't expect it to get dredged up after all this time though. (Note to people making movie comparisons: Try the Terminator! It keeps attacking even when all its skin is melted off and only its torso is left! Top that, Glenn Close!)
Or you could compare Obama to Gandalf when that big subterranean demon hits him with a final flailing blow as it's falling down a chasm into the very bowels of the earth. Yeah man, that'd be bitchin'. (Ooops I mean gnarly, don't say "bitch")
-
Kennedy was out of line
He shouldn't have said that.
But again all of this would be easier if we had some idea of when this thing was going to end and some notion that Senator Clinton's not going to take it neutral (continue to push her insane 128-0 seating of the Michigan delegation and take it to the convention.)
Why can't one of her major supporters, Carville, McAuliffe, Bill, Begala, Lanny, Hillary Rosen, Lisa Caputo, Maggie, get out there and give us an unequivocal sign that come June 5th she WILL QUIT if she doesn't have the delegate lead. Period.
Please Obama supporters try to keep the sexism to a minimum. You shouldn't be doing it at all. It is disgusting. And this campaign has taken it to unheard of levels. While I think we should be focusing on winning the White House and getting a Democrat elected, do understand why some Hillary supporters rightfully feel the need as they should to point out the stupid, counter-productive role of sexism in thsi campaign.
At some point I hope there is a realization on Clinton supporters part that they too have a duty to support the Party and the ideas that matter to all of us (ending this stupid war, fixing the economy, putting the Justices we need on the court, diplomacy) and get behind Obama.
-
so criticizing clinton automatically is sexism?
to hell with this, let's say anything we want, forget women or minorities or anyone who might be offended.
i'm sick of this BS.
-
Kennedy's "Disrespect"
doesn't fit with the content of the story.
While you might see it as a slur - judging by the supplied quote it is not sexist.
Or is all criticism of Hillary sexist in its nature?
The thing is that Hillary and Obama have essentially different messages and different places in this race: Obama is the outsider while Hillary is the insider, Obama trades on "Unity" while Hillary trades on appealing to one segment of the Democratic base - while irritating the rest of the Democratic base.
Obama managed to win with the rules as they are by running an effective campaign, Hillary wants to win by changing the rules in her favour because she, and her supporters feel she deserves it after years of being mistreated - sort of "The press has treat you like shit for years, have the presidency as a consolation prize."
Obama has centred his campaign on him being better than Hillary, Hillary has outright stated that McCain - the opposing party's candidate with a totally different set of policies - would be better than Obama.
Hillary has throughout the campaign been identified with race baiting and outright lying. Her campaign started off with claiming that Obama's supporters are cultists, naive and downring stupid - while slamming them for being elitists because Obama's campaign happens to have attracted the educated vote.
Hillary's campaign has played up "Toughness" in her foreign policy while Obama's has played up approachability.
While Hillary has outright blamed illegal aliens for stealing American jobs, Obama has stated that that was scapegoating, and not the sort of thing that will lead to any solutions.
On every issue where Hillary has striven to hit the hot button in a bid to stop people thinking about the issues, Obama has tried to appeal to people to think. Where Hillary made gender front and centre to her campaign, Obama made hope front and centre to his.
There is a reason why it took SC for Obama to win the black vote - and it wasn't questions over his viability. Hillary outright offended the black vote and has done nothing to try and win it back.
The two would not campaign well together - because what is good in Obama's campaign, what he has done in his campaign, has been to appeal to people's "Nobler instincts."
That is not to say that Obama hasn't attracted some of the uglier side of humanity - some of the following Obama has gained has been because he is not Hillary Clinton and there is nothing more that can be said of that.
But, in the end, his argument to be made to the supers will not be "I am a black man" it will be "I lead in almost every metric and I have attained that lead without asking you to change the rules for me." Hillary's argument on the other hand will be "Uneducated white blue collar voters won't vote for a black man."
During this campaign the argument has been made that sexism in America is more rife than racism, that Hillary has been unfairly treated by the press, that the caucus system is unfair and that the rules Clinton agreed to before the race started should be changed for Michigan and Florida.
This is not the "nobler" sentiment that voters seek, this is asking for pity, and for moving the goal posts. That this is being asked for by the candidate who claims to be "tougher" speaks volumes for how Hillary cannot beat McCain.
So while Obama has been no saint in this election, and while he is by no means perfect, when Kennedy speaks of "noble", unless he says something worse after it, he is correct.