Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Very good article. Hillary has become a cancer within the Democratic party, destroying it as she seeks to gain victory at any cost. It can be defined as the "either I win or I destroy the candidate in my party who has won" formula. This strategy is consistent with her blind power-lust for the presidency... if it can't happen this term, then 2012. Assuming that, with her early in the season help, McCain wins. She will then point to Obama, who she so badly battered with racial innuendo, bigotry baiting, and misrepresentations et al., that he looses, and say "I told you so." The "letting the voting process go forward" doesn't have a realistic function for determining the winner, which I believe she knows, but instead gives her more time to manipulate the superdelegates. And if that doesn't work, she can at least have more time to make Obama unelectable. This is a reality that her ardent supporters don't seem to understand. They cheer her on, hoping for a victory that is statistically impossible. It's as if they believe that by repeating the same mantra over and over again it will produce an outcome that contradicts the numerical facts. Meanwhile the cancer grows and the nation will suffer four-to-eight more years of Republican slow death.

Macyn Bolt

Dingmans Ferry, PA

Apr 23 2008 - 6:29pm

Web Letter

Tom, can't you try to appear on MSNBC to speak some of this stuff out in the open?

Finally, someone who has zeroed in on my feelings to a T. I am a 55-yr. old who considers herself pretty cool when it comes to my natural bonds wih other women--but "that woman" (that's all I can call her) drives me nuts! I don't often react this way to any type of woman : I can't stand the sight or sound of her--this is not the kind of woman I relate to at all. I find myself uncomfortable when she shows up, like witnessing someone who's beginning to unravel, just short of being hysterical... scary.

Also (in Obama's defense), why doesn't anyone mention that we all knew people who were somewhat radical in the '60s (and who in their right mind wouldn't have been at the time?). We've now all become grown-ups (presumably) and have mellowed out but still feel a conviction about "what is right" & "what is wrong"--it's real.

"That woman" is living in denial--it shows up every time she does. She is a master manipulator, but the scariest part is that she's a victim of her own manipulation, and therefore doesn't have a clue who she really is. As I said : scary.

Lise D'Aristide

Los Angeles, CA

Apr 23 2008 - 6:15pm

Web Letter

I can't believe how the Obamamaniacs continue to act toward anyone who disagrees with them. Either make them out to be racists or put down other candidates (Clinton or McCain), as if they're the problem. How about considering, for just a minute, that there are very thoughtful people who have studied the issues and candidates, but have come to the conclusion they support someone other than Obama?

Steve Barg

Ripon, WS

Apr 23 2008 - 5:57pm

Web Letter

In response to this "article" I would like to quote something. It is something Nation readers and editors should be familiar with. "The Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political and social questions a really critical spirit..."

Robert Harbison

Bowling Green, KY

Apr 23 2008 - 5:37pm

Web Letter

If only Mr. Hayden and his wife were not so biased, they might realize that Barack Obama has that same "nails-to-chalkboard" effect on nearly half of the Democratic party and even more of the general electorate as well. Indeed, I am one of those people who "scream" each time I hear Mr. Obama's rhetoric, which exudes arrogance and self-rightousness.

Nevertheless, my reasons for not supporting Mr. Obama are much more substantive. Thus, to suggest that Hillary Clinton supporters are "bitter" because of of their unwilliness to accept Mr. Obama is a perspective that not only demeans but is "bitter" itself.

I am not racist, nor stupid. And to suggest that I am not progressive is equally false. In fact by your demographics, I should be an Obama supporter. I live in a diverse community, I hold three college degrees, I am considered upper-income and I am extremely well read and well traveled. But after utilizing my life experiences and my learned critical thinking processes to evaluate the candidates, I still prefer Ms. Clinton, despite her "shrill" voice or her laugh.

Coco Paradisio

Cleveland, OH

Apr 23 2008 - 5:37pm

Web Letter

Thank you, Tom! I was feeling so lonely here in the mountains. Couldn't hear your wife (even though I also spend alot of time in the silence). Couldn't hear anyone but Hillary on radio and cable TV plying her spurious wares.

Sent an e-mail question for Ken Rudin on NPR today, but they didn't air it. I'll print it here in the hope that it will somehow get into the conversation (anyone is invited to please appropriate it):

It seems that the day or so before each primary, Hillary goes "negative" is some way. I won't list them here. However, it seems that there are two kinds of "negative": a kind that is true, and a kind that is not true. Don't you think it would be helpful if news reports would distinguish between these two kinds of negative?

Lynda Connor

Boone, NC

Apr 23 2008 - 5:31pm

Web Letter

Mr. Hayden's argument might carry more weight with me if he let his wife speak for herself.

Of course, if I was married to Tom Hayden I might scream too.

Charmian Neary

Rye, NY

Apr 23 2008 - 5:29pm

Web Letter

Mr. Hayden talks about the glass ceiling that Hillary, and Barack, are facing. The only glass ceiling that will be broken is what face will be on the head of the corporate war-mongering machine that is bringing us closer to self annihalation.

"Anybody but Bush" wasn't good enough reason to vote for the Democrats the last two elections, and "Anybody but McCain" won't be enough this year either.

Not everyone is chosing the Kool-Aid that is being offered by the political machines. There is the Green Party, Nader and others who are offering a different path.

The sad part is that that the democratic party would rather have McCain be President than to allow a progressive element to enter the party.

So it goes...

A. Gyenis

Eureka, CA

Apr 23 2008 - 5:20pm

Web Letter

In retrospect, the party should have done the right thing years ago and washed their hands of this unseemly political union when they had the chance during the impeachment trial. I know, I know, but think about it, instead they circled the wagons and defended the indefensible. Well now its time to pay the tab, the wages of sin are upon us. You think there's damage being done to the party now? Wait until the after the first ballot at the convention, when all delegates, not just the supers, are no longer obligated to vote for their candidate and instead can vote for whoever they choose. You think for a moment that won't be nasty? Influence peddling, coercion, intimidation, money changing hands, backroon deals. When the whole country is riveted to their flat screens, no less. If it wasn't obvious before, it should be painfully obvious now: Hillary is taking the fight for the nomination all the way to the convention. Clinton entitlement, Clinton narcissism, Bill's third term is now the biggest impediment to the Democrats taking back the White House in what is clearly a Democratic year. A very high price, indeed, to pay for preserving their political viability.

Brien Cassidy

Glendale, GA

Apr 23 2008 - 4:56pm

Web Letter

So Obama cuts her off at the pass and stops her from winning the nomination. Senator Flash gets off his horse and accepts everybody's congratulations... until he remembers that he hasn't really won. He was hoping that the bitch would concede, then he remembers that she may not win but she can do the same thing to him! Not fair! Not fair! Senator Flash is looking for Trigger and the bitch is getting away! She will spoil everything! She's gaining respect among the "bitter"! She'll come to Denver with more than enough delegates from the right states to demand serious consideration. Do you believe that Senator Flash will survive without the "bitter"? Are you just hoping that Black Jack can win it by himself? Another 1960 in the works?

As soon as it becomes clear to everybody that nobody proceeds without the other it becomes deal time. She can break the nuts of Senator Flash. Even Hayden's wife knows it. The question you really should be asking concerns the price of the nomination. What really should concern you are mundane matters like the seating in the next Congress. Who is assigned to what committee. What are the legislative priorities in the next administration? Who runs what? Clinton has a big shopping list. If she can't win the nomination she'll send Obama but don't be downhearted! American politics has always traded this for that. Then you should be asking yourselves another question. Is it enough to hold the interests of her supporters? Obama and Clinton both gambled. If Obama can't win the nomination without her, he's a paper tiger. If Obama can't close the deal then he doesn't deserve the nomination or the job. What are we doing except sending a liberal copy of George Bush to Washington? Why? So Tom's wife can dream about her man? Grow up, people.

Derry Ledoux

Boston, MA

Apr 23 2008 - 4:54pm

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.