Letters to the Editor
-
"Anything Jess Jackson says should be taken with an once of common sense"
He once had common sense?
-
Tears, Fears, Jeers, and Grinding Gears
JJJr. needs to stop "helping" Obama. I know what he's trying to say, but the way he's getting there isn't doing Obama any favors. His foot keeps finding its way right into his mouth.
I never thought I'd say it, but I agree with Maureen Dowd's column in today's NYT ("Can Hillary Cry Her Way to the White House?") when she wrote...
There was a poignancy about the moment, seeing Hillary crack with exhaustion from decades of yearning to be the principal rather than the plus-one. But there was a whiff of Nixonian self-pity about her choking up. What was moving her so deeply was her recognition that the country was failing to grasp how much it needs her. In a weirdly narcissistic way, she was crying for us. But it was grimly typical of her that what finally made her break down was the prospect of losing.
...
Her argument against Obama now boils down to an argument against idealism, which is probably the lowest and most unlikely point to which any Clinton could sink. The people from Hope are arguing against hope.
I had that same Nixon vibe with the Clinton eye-watering episode (I felt like she was close to saying "You won't have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore."), and her frustration that everybody wasn't getting how great she sees herself as being for the country -- it's like Tracy Flick writ large.
But how many tears can she shed, really? It's a long campaign season ahead, and I can't see that working again and again. And what of the people moved to vote for her in NH because of the Tears(tm)? Are they Clintonites for life, now? Talk about a fairy tale -- what magical tears. Can they hold voters spellbound for the remainder of the campaign? Never were votes more cheaply bought than with a pair of watery eyes.
I'm thinking of how the shameful images of police and civil brutality in the South shamed the majority of the nation into supporting the civil rights movement (and, sadly, galvanized the Southern Strategy of the GOP) -- but how those images moved and motivated people to act. And by paltry comparison, we get Clinton getting choked up as the iconic image of the season? Clinton has a moment of Tracy Flickian frustration, and that carries the day? I hope it was just a fluke, and not a harbinger of what's in store for us.
The Obama campaign needs to leave the Tears(tm) the hell behind, JJJr. needs to move on, or Clinton's tears will be the cheapest vote-getters ever used in the history of American politics.
-
@ al loomis
Saving your shift key for a rainy day, you wrote, "maybe this is the time when macho behavior is no longer the standard of 'human' behavior. there's a lot of female voters in the usa, with a high standard of education, most work, many are well paid professionals, and just maybe it's time for 'female' standards of behavior to become the norm. this has to be an improvement, from such a low base, anyway is up."
This is an unintentionally ironic post. You, the male, are ready to accord value to "female standards of behavior", but only, apparently, since "there's a lot of female voters in the usa, with a high standard of education, most work, many are well paid professionals". Presumably, if that weren't the case, "female standards of behavior" would be unworthy. Am I missing something here?
-
@ Anonymous 03:49 PM
Oh, I don't know. If her opponents keep on as they are going, every woman in American may end up in her column. Evey pre-menstrual woman whose guy ever told her to stop her manipulative tears will suddenly have sympathy for her. Every tired working woman who has ever come home exhausted and teared up at her child's kiss will suddenly have sympathy for her. Every woman who ever felt near tears when she couldn't even figure out why will have sympathy for her.
I urge the fools to keep it up. Her presidential victory, given to her by women pissed off at men who ridicule women when they cry, will surely be a first in American history.
Face it. Women cry more than men. This biological difference is something we resent being punished for.
I have said it before and I will say it again: Every sexist remark moves me closer to Hillary. I am currently supporting Edwards, but I ain't married to him, and women voters outnumber men. I won't vote for a sexist.
-
@AKA Smith
You might be right, AKA, that she could draw enough women to compensate for any lost male support.
Seems a rather dreary and divisive way to govern, though.
I don't doubt that women identify and sympathize with her for having a hard day. But, as Edwards pointed out, she will be commander in chief. She will be asking men and women, and let's be honest, mostly men, to die for their country. In fact, she has already caused the deaths of many men and women with her self-absorbed votes, causing enormously hard days for them and their families. Does she look at the soldiers and say, hey, I'm the woman's candidate. You dead boys were a bunch of oppressing, sexist so-and-so's and my supporters think you were orcs and dodos and should be dead anyway. But hey, i won't judge your mothers harshly if they cry.
Personally, I want to vote for a responsible person who may not look like me, may not have the same experiences as me, but who will look out not only for people of my identity but also for others. I'd also like to beat the Republicans.
-
A note about the democratic party
Before the democratic party was hijacked by upper middle class pro abortion feminists, it stood for the disadvantaged. A reading of the collected speeches of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is bracing. I dare say, the disadvantaged are always a majority within a capitalistic economy - and I have no desire to overthrow capitalism. Like FDR, I would like to use the power of government to mitigate the power of the rich to exploit the poor. If Jonah Goldberg wants to call this "fascism", let him.
I say again, "the disadvantaged are always a majority within a capitalistic economy."
The Democratic party needs to find a way to engage the disadvantaged majority in the political process.
Inviting Republicans or unscrupulous Democrats to use the issue of race as a way of dividing disadvantaged people against each other in the voting booth is not a good plan.
Inviting feminists to govern based on their economic accomplishments is not a good plan.
Go back to the source. *Read* a little FDR. It's good for the soul.