Letters to the Editor
-
bilhelm
Neither Margaret Thatcher nor Indira Gandhi do squat for women's issues while in office. Nor did Benazir Bhutto or Bandernaika. Not only did they not address the inequities of gender, but they capitalized on their dynastic entitlements and hoarded millions in Swiss Bank accounts. I am not inlcuding Thatcher in dynasty and Swiss Bank equations. Hillary also is capitalizing on dynastic rule and has made oodles of money post White House.
Women are voting for her, because she represents how far women have come. I don't think we have came far enough if a vote for Hillary validates our feminism. Marian Edelman and her former colleagues have distanced themselves from her. They know what caliber of person she is. Look up Obama's endorsements and you will find many prominent feminist names there. Of course, there is a poster here who already tried to ridicule and demonize these "fringe" people. But you get my drift.
-
@ KcM: Reply to the Replies
And asking you to explain what you meant is not hateful, and it's bizarre of you to act as such.
Okay. Point taken and my apology for that. But, what I pointed out was that your first post actually indicated that Cantwell "said" she would be supporting the candidate with the most pledged delegates, which is not accurate. I pointed that out. Now I suppose I could have added a line about the "wiggle room" she provided herself, but I didn't.
It's also pretty common of you to fall back on straw-man Obamaisms like "transcending politics as usual"
First of all, I don't see this as a 'straw man', particularly given some of the conversations you and I have had re: Clinton's and Obama's way of looking at the political world. But, again, I apologize for including that.
The rest of your argument is a total non-sequitur, particularly since the rest of the entry wasn't about you. Note the transition: "As for the crazies."
Well, the post was addressed to me. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to read it under those circumstances.
Settled?
-
This conversation is depressing
A lot of venom being spat here.
Are people really going to vote for a Republican if their chosen candidate doesn't win the Democratic nomination? This makes so little sense I can't comprehend the mentality of anyone who'd say such a thing, beyond irrational hatred. Both candidates are competent enough to become President. Neither are perfect, but they're not warmongers with a tendency for tantrums either and neither are going to appoint right wing lunatics to the Supreme Court.
To not do your part to get the Republicans out of power this November is an act of treason. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination, they need our support.
-
@ Peeps: Presumptious
Okay. That probably was slightly over the top, but just a little! ;]
I admit I haven't read a lot of your posts, but in perusing them in this letters thread it appears that you don't have an axe to grind. So, if I offended you in a broad sweep, I apologize.
Finally -- there are several regular posters on this site who engage in race-baiting, foul language, sexist language, and personal attacks on Clinton supporters, who really do seem to have nothing better to do than "stir up the s***. You know who they are; I know who they are.
And, yes, freedom of speech is great and should be encouraged. But there comes some personal responsibility with that right.
Does this clear it up?
-
bilhelm
Hillary doesn't have passion. She has ambition. And Maggie Thatcher as a role model? really? If McLame had a sex change operation, you'd have Maggie. Is that what you want? Not me. I want an actual Democrat, not Lieberman without the schlong, circumcised or otherwise. All that said, I will STILL vote for Hillary if she slimes her way into the nomination. I won't do much good, but I'll do it anyway. Her campaign, having blown a twenty point lead and turned it into a virtually insurmountable second place finish, shows her leadership capabilities. Of course, no one can question her bravery after enduring that Bosnian sniper fire. At least Bill was a good liar.
-
"To not do your part to get the Republicans out of power this November is an act of treason."
Agreed.
-
Hagee and Parsley and Robinson vs Wright
Here is the difference between Hagee and Parsley and Robinson.
Yes they endorsed McCain and you can fault him for that although I doubt many RW's will.
However Wright was Obama's pastor, spiritual advisor, and mentor for over twenty years. That is quite different and his clumsy efforts to first deny then equivocate their relationship has turned quite a few people aay from Obama.
I have spent a couple of hours daily in a cancer center for the past couple of weeks where CNN is on the TV constantly. My experience is that this Rev Wright business has turned people against him big time. When he comes on TV his negatives appear to be quite high among cancer patients and their families in western PA. I don't know how that plays out in the state but the anti Obama sentiment is stong there.
Someone brought up his speech and the comment was made, Big deal his ass was up against the wall. He had to make the speech. Another political animal trying to sweet talk his way out of trouble.
In fact what I hear most from people there is "It doesn't matter who is in there, they are all crooks." Do people really feel that way? I don't know but it would explain some things.
Most people have only seen or heard snippets. They don't read Salon or blogs, they don't read about politics, they don't really care about politics, they only get their info from TV in 30 second sound bites.
I will vote for whoever the Dem is but I cannot shake the feeling that when the Mighty Wurlitzer and the media really turn on Obama, because for all the wailing and crying about dirty politics this has been kid gloves stuff compared to what he will face in the GE. the 527's will be pounding him 24/7 and I feel Obama will be defeated soundly by another presenile old man. I hope not for my sake but for my children's.
That is why we have to be sure to nominate the correct choice whoever that may be.