A reader writes:
I am a 52 yr old, gay woman who is a resident of Illinois and who has enthusiastically supported Obama since he ran for State Senate. Iowa made me swoon and I looked forward to seeing the New Hampshire primary put the Clinton candidacy to bed. But, by Monday night, I was sputtering that "we are not electing Jesus here" and was appalled/furious at the undisguised and creepily malevolent glee that the talking heads (Fox bobbleheads/barbies and Chris Matthews deserve particular mention; and you, sir, do not come out unscathed) were throwing up as "analysis" of the "Hillary meltdown" and of their frankly undisguised loathing of her. I thought it was sexist and so did every woman I know.
You dismissed the Steinem editorial as "old-line lefty". Newsflash: there were twenty copies of that editorial in my in-box before breakfast yesterday morning all of them from women who are ardent Obama supporters. We remain Obama supporters and will work "until the last dog dies" (thanks, Hillary!) for his nomination. However, we are just about done with a media that cannot report, analyze or provide information on candidates without first filtering it through its self-aggrandizing, inside-the-beltway-fantasy- filter about what would provide a better election narrative. Okay, so much of the media does not like Hillary? Neither do I. They just have to stop with the comments about tears, wrinkles, brittleness, legs and her alleged cackle. I may not want to vote for herbut I have always respected her. Peggy Noonan was too-obviously thrilled to write that Obama "took Mama to school" in Iowa; looks to me like Mama took the country to school last night.
I hear you. I missed this. I see it now.
(Photo: Eric Thayer/Getty.)
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to firstname.lastname@example.org.