Letters to the Editor
-
@antoinettestephanie
Joan, I would be very interested to know what you think about Hillary comparing Obama's unwillingness to seat the delegates in accordance with the popular vote (although he is open to other options)with Robert Mugabe trying to suppress the vote in Zimbabwe.
Come on, antoinettestephanie. We can't just start making things up now!!! If she actually did say this, don't think Joan would need to just say:
Well, I think Clinton is going too far with some of her comments, but she is right: our country needs to take a more serious look at many issues and I, for one, support Clinton or anybody else who demands we do so.
Wouldn't that kind of comment be the way to go? However, I see no evidence that Clinton is drawing such comparisons, therefore, Joan's response is moot.
-
GOOD JEB
bASED ON YOUR POSTS your closer to the republcains than the new democratic party. Rather than blamign whining and complaining, make your choice.
But please. Vote republcian. Take all sabotuers with you. this way we can build the new democratic party, and the country, without your republcain sabotage.
you proved me right. The fascists burn both ends of the candle. The men in these fascist families vote republcain, the women pretend to be demcorats to sabotage. Your man both parties are not the same side of the same fascist coin? It's called a two party system. If you hate democracy move to south america or africa. Let's see how tough you fascist old people are then. :)
-
OOPS
"Your man both parties are not the same side of the same fascist coin"
yOUR MAD BOTH PARTIES ARE NOT DIFFERANT SIDES OF THE SAME FASCIST COIN, LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES? rATHER
that is not democracy. That is slavery. If you don't love freedom and democracy yoru not an american. Just fascists living here.
-
From an long term feminist: Get over the sexism, jebldmm
Blantant sexism? Whoa Girl! Many of us have experienced the glass ceiling. However, it is not our duty to go out and appoint a woman, just because she is a woman, to the highest office in the land.
As a feminist I believe that the way we should select a candidate is pick the one who we believe is best for the job, the one who could do the best for our country.
Look at the nomination process. Early on, I liked Hillary. I live in a Super Tuesday state. As the candidates came through town last year, I went to see them all except Hillary because I could not afford it. Hillary wanted $1000 per person. She could not be bothered with the 'little people.' Obama wanted a $25 donation if you could give it, if not you could get 'scholarship' tickets. Richardson and Edwards wanted whatever you could give.
When Hillary was the sure fire winner she did not give a damn about us little people. She would not even agree to a short meeting with us, not even a chance to see walk to her $1000 fundraiser. Now, she is desperate for all the little votes.
Sexism? No way. This race is about Hillary. She couldn't be bothered with me, so why should I bother with her? BTW, I became an Obama supporter. Early on, he MOVED the crowd. He had something special that I had never seen before. After Hillary's snub, I thought that I would pick Edwards until I saw Obama. Hillary became my last choice based on her "I am the crowned one" attitude. (BTW, McCain is doing the same thing now, charging $2300 a person to see him!)
So, don't tell me this is about sexism. This is about choice, and my ability as a feminist to make one.
-
@ jebldmm - "I'm quitting the Democratic Party and joining NOW"
That's like saying I'm quitting the Democratic Party and joining the Democratic Party.
-
@Jeannette Don't lie about what I said
I have never said, nor do I believe, that Clinton should be elected because she is a woman. I have never even heard any feminist say this, although I'm certain that some have done so. The idea that women simply want to elect Clinton because she is a woman is a lie spread by Obama supporter's. It would be nice to have a woman President, just as it would be nice to have a black President, but neither race nor gender are good enough reasons to select a particular candidate.
I have solid reasons for not voting for Obama that I have described elsewhere. Feminism is why I'm writing Clinton's name in on the ballot, as a messge, and leaving the Democratic Party. No, not even "feminism". It's anger at blatant sexism and disrespect. Don't try to distort what I said into "I am taking my ball and going home because my girl didn't win". I have clearly expressed my anger over this election, and it has nothing to do with "I want a woman President".
-
Carol
After months of just not understanding where Joan was coming from, I think I do. Maybe. I think Joan thinks we are nominating another Adlai Stevenson. I think she gets it that Obama is the better candidate within the party: a Democrat's Democrat, like some comedian the public barely knows who's a comic's comic. You know? Brilliant, but can't sell tickets, too edgy, will lose the audience, but the only guy who can make other comics laugh.
Only instead of saying so, because that would be too top down, she just asks all the questions and we read race and gender into them. I don't think it's race, although I used to wonder if it was, and I don't think it's gender, although I think gender is practically everything for the people who post. I think this is where elitism comes in. Not as in "I hate it when people make me feel inadequate" but as in "The most forward-looking people in the party are once again putting a candidate out there who is going to make all of us very proud to be Democrats because he matches our best images of ourselves and and who is going to lose."
I think Joan thinks we are making the classic fatal choice: if it were 1968, half of us would be saying Eugene McCarthy was much better than anyone else because he opposed the war first. And Joan would be thinking...great, but Humphrey stands a better chance of winning. Not that he actually did, but he looked like someone who could.
I think Joan really thinks Obama cannot win this thing, which is why she is sorry to see Clinton go. I think her intuition is guiding her more than polls which show both candidates beating McCain. It's just a sort of hunch she's following: that 30 seconds before they vote, people are going to get cold feet. Obama for National Symbol (the country we wish we were) I think she gets. But Clinton for President because she's NOT "all that." She's just a tough Washington insider.
Not the candidate of women (well, she is, and I think Joan likes that, but not to a nutty degree.) But maybe, in Joan's impression, the candidate you compromise on because Obama is too good, in all the ways Democrats like, to win.
I'm for Obama and I think he can win. But I think he makes Joan nervous in an Adlai Stevenson way. Does this make sense to you?