Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Tom Hayden put to words why the Clinton campaign seems so much more negative than any Democratic primary before. Since her "inevitability" was not ratified by the voters in the first twenty or thirty states to have voted, her campaign's attacks have been aimed at destroying Obama with exactly the type of issues she herself could be destroyed on if they are what voters use to decide.

Clearly the Clintons and the Clinton campaign are pros of this kind of politics (on both sides--as aggressor and defender). But Hayden really is right. It is time to make it abundantly clear that this time they have gone too far, are too hypocritical and too self-absorbed to be given any more benefit of the doubt. I do not think it is too late to clear the air. The renewed belief in the promise of America that Obama has brought to this campaign for millions of new voters and millions more who gave up on seeing better days can still prevail.

The Clinton's campaign character assasination of Obama needs to end, and Hayden gives a pretty good outline on how to help stop it.

Tim Lynch

North Hollywood, CA

Apr 23 2008 - 2:48pm

Web Letter

This is just a partisan libel addressed at people who hold these supposed "truths" to be self-evident.

Being on the other side of the divide, I also want to occasionally throw things at the TV and radio. So I can empathize.

Obama supporters have been trash-talking their adversary--a fellow Democrat, proposing universal health care--for months on the Internet with incredible virulence and then pretend to be spotless and above the fray. And they have been getting away with it.

I never thought I would say this to anyone: Stop whining! If you can't stand the heat, then... you know what to do.

Christian Serre

Phoenix, AZ

Apr 23 2008 - 2:45pm

Web Letter

I think your wife is allergic to supersuccessful women and is resulting in her screaming whenever she sees Senator Clinton on television. Well, she is one among the thousands in the country suffering from this syndrome.

My advice is to her is set aside the gender and evaulate both candidates, the kind of work they have done and think about who is more electable in November. Empty rhetoric, inspirational speeches are not going to solve the problems. Ask her to list Sen. Obama's accomplishments and compare them with Sen. Clinton's. If required, I'd be glad to provide more information to her.

Pennsylvanians delivered the message striaght yesterday night. We need someone that is tough and strong against a hero like McCain. Not someone who complains about debate questions being difficult or who is not comfortable explaining his acquaintances.

And Mrs. Hayden, if you are so much carried away by Sen Obama's inspirational speeches, may I suggest you support his speech-writing team.

Sujesh Sundaram

Santa Clara, CA

Apr 23 2008 - 2:44pm

Web Letter

You described me to a "T." I could just scream right now! I too am a peaceful health nut and Hillary is making me nuts to the point of being angry with myself for allowing her to do that!! How she fooled all those poor PA voters (my parents were from PA, but much smarter!) into thinking she gives a crap about them is beyond me. The other issue is the margin being reported that she won PA by 10 percent. According to the Pennsylvania Secretary of State's website the number is 9.2, a single-digit win not a double[digit win--small difference, but very important! Why is that not being reported in the mainstream media? The accurate figure should be reported to the American public!I was a Republican for forty years and am now backing Barack Obama (same for my husband) as I am sick and tired of the politics of the past. I will not have a good nights sleep until Hillary is out of this race!Let your wife know I feel her pain!

Tricia Edwards

Ft Lauderdale , FL

Apr 23 2008 - 2:31pm

Web Letter

Tom, I'm sorry but you are so "yesterday." Your article reminds me of Stokeley Carmichael (or was it Huey Newton?) famously saying that, "Sure, there's a position for women in the Black Power movement: prone." The progressive youthified left has never been comfortable with women of power ('60s anthems like "American Woman, Stay Away from Me," "Under my Thumb" and "Stairway to Heaven" come to mind).

Yes, I did read the article and yes, I did see your obligatory nods to feminism (understanding why Hillary would have to be extra strong on defense etc.) but you betray your true leanings with phrases like "nails on a blackboard" (more than one male pundit has used similar terms to describe how incredibly... well, annoying Hillary is) and by attributing this belief to your wife (thinking, like CNN with Candy Crowley, that if you can get anti-female opinion to come from the mouth of a woman, then you skate free of all charges of sexism).

Tom, the '60s are over. It is time for a new generation of leadership. It's time for Change Women Can Believe In. It's time, above all, to move away from that uniquely "progressive" form of disingenuousness that sugar-coats deep misogyny for easy consumption by the liberal left.

Heather Collins

Palo Alto, CA

Apr 23 2008 - 2:21pm

Web Letter

I scream at TV-Hillary, too. For thirty-five years I have dreamed of electing a woman as President--a woman who would focus on the issues and work to elevate discourse. Instead, Hillary has turned out to be a nightmare, acting like one of the "good ol' boys." In reality, Obama is the candidate I had imagined. Go figure. It's not about gender, after all. It's about integrity.

Deborah Lovett

Albuquerque, NM

Apr 23 2008 - 2:00pm

Web Letter

Anyone foolish enough to believe Hillary won the PA Democratic primary on her own accord should seek professional help.

Between the Republicans taking the advice of "Mr. Dopey," Rush Limbaugh, and switching party affiliation for the PA primary and the voter fraud in that state, it's obvious Hillary lost big time.

She, like the conceited and immature braggart that stole the White House in 2000 and 2004, has no scruples when it comes to stealing elections. Nor does she have any scruples when it comes to making a stand and sticking by what she has said.

If Hillary does somehow manage to weasel her way into the White House this fall, the Secret Service already have her code name picked out: Windsock.

Greg Bacon

Ava, MO

Apr 23 2008 - 1:48pm

Web Letter

I have to believe Hillary is working for McCain. It's ludicrous for her to continue, there is no mathematical way for her to win. And I thought W. was a pathological liar, Hillary is a close second.

Martin C Lipka

Cleveland, OH

Apr 23 2008 - 11:23am

Web Letter

I am perpetually amazed that progressives and lefties like Tom Hayden and his wife get apoplectic at the idea that the American people should vote, and that once they've voted, that their votes should be counted.

It is true that Clinton cannot win without the superdelegates. What seems to escape the Haydens is that Obama can't, either. This race continues to be extremely close, and that mandates that the campaign should continue until all the primary states have had their say, and then the superdelegates will get to decide.

Barack Obama is no more entitled to the nomination because Tom and his wife like him better than Hillary is because I like her better. Personally, I think the primary results show very clearly that Clinton has a far better chance against McCain than Obama. The Haydens no doubt feel differently. That's why we have elections, and most particularly, that's why we have superdelegates.

The Democratic Party nomination does not automatically go to the candidate whose supporters can pitch the loudest and most public hissy fits.

What we're seeing in this election is a yawning split between the progressive elites like Mr. Hayden and his wife--and apparently most of The Nation--and rank-and-file bread-and-butter working-stiff Democrats. People need to think about that a bit more deeply than casually dismissing it as racism or delusions brought on by Republican exploitation of social fears.

I suggest Mr. Hayden and his wife have some decaf and let the voting process play out as it was designed to do.

Jane Stein

Shoreham, VT

Apr 23 2008 - 10:54am

Web Letter

Tom Hayden says that because his wife doesn't like Hillary Clinton, he thinks Hillary should quit the race. I had no idea that elitism is now a progressive principle.

Hayden's wife can scream all she likes, but there are progressives who believe in doing their talking at the ballot box. In Pennsylvania yesterday, 2.3 million voters spoke. Not only did the Haydens not like what they heard, apparently they don't care about the people and what the people think.

While the Haydens indulge themselves in a tantrum over Hillary's alleged "path of destruction," they have obviously missed Barack Obama's impressive record of invoking Republican talking points against Hillary. For someone who has decried "petty, trivial, slash-and-burn, tit-for-tat politics," it's obvious he prefers using those techniques himself.

Mrs. Hayden may be inspired by Obama's undefined "transformational appeal," but she should be reminded that with all his advantages, Obama still hasn't pulled a game-ending upset. What does that say for his chances in November if the Haydens get their wish and he is the nominee?

Corinne Marasco

Alexandria, VA

Apr 23 2008 - 10:49am