“‘He said he’d be a uniter, not a divider. He said he’d bring America together,’ she said of Bush. ‘He didn’t need a lot of experience, he had this great intuition, he understood people, he could go meet with rogue leaders, look in their eyes and their souls, solve our problems. Remember that?‘” And here’s another Clinton attempt to grapple Obama to the mat: He’s Dubya all over again. Uh, this from the “national security” candidate who backed Dubya’s play in both Iraq and Iran? Sorry, try again.
Still, the article above was worth reading for this sterling endorsement: “Ryan and Anna Pekins, 18-year old twins from Durham who said they plan to vote in Tuesday’s primary, said they came away very impressed with Clinton. ‘I was leaning toward Hillary before and now I’m pretty sure I’ll vote for her,’ Anna said. ‘I think she keeps in mind that not everyone wants to see change in the country and the plans she proposes appeal to those who support change and those who don’t.‘” She just about called it: Vote Clinton, the “Status Quo-Change” candidate.
I happen to be the mother of the 18 year old twins, one of whom you chose to castigate with a very smarmy posting. You obviously did not understand the nuances of her comment which, ironically, were echoed in a commentary by Michael Kinsely in the NY Times yesterday. With all of your degrees from esteemed institutions, one would think that you would go after someone with similar credentials instead of a senior in high school.
By the way, it’s really tacky to include your GPA on your vitae.
Simmer down now…I’m not “going after” your children. As I said, I thought your daughter’s comment was very prescient about Clinton, and was much more honest about the nature of her appeal than most of Clinton’s other backers. In other words, I thought your daughter “got” Clinton and was honest about it: If you’re reluctant to see changes in this country, she makes a pretty good candidate. (By the way, thanks for pointing out the Kinsley article, although I’d argue his point is slightly different. He’s saying even people who don’t want change better realize that some very hard changes are coming down the pike soon, because our current stability is untenable.)
Also, our respective educations are beside the point. Your twins are now 18 — they’re citizens and voters. If they’re going to voice their opinions and political preferences in so public a manner, and I hope they continue to do so, they should expect others both to ponder what they’re saying and remark on the *substance* of their comments. (In fact, what other reason is there to do it?) Whether your daughter was 18 or 35 or 75 is of no consequence in this regard. That being said, obviously I’d understand why you’d be protective of her.
Finally, opinions differ on the GPA question, and it’s usually considered mandatory in academic applications. Generally the feeling is, not including it encourages people to think your grades are lousy. But, this isn’t really an important issue right now, is it?
Thanks for your very reasoned reply. Mothers can get very protective of their brood — I never showed your initial comments to my daughter and really should have let her take on this battle, but I responded quickly and irrationally. My coment about your GPA, though incredibly rude (sorry), was based on the experience of my husband, his colleagues and his undergraduate and graduate students.
I wish you luck with your blog and your other endeavors,,,,