Re "It's not personal," Opinion, May 21
Jonathan Chait is condescending to Hillary Rodham Clinton and her supporters. He allows that "plenty of voters support Clinton for the same essential reasons they support other candidates: her character, platform, etc.," but then goes on to say that "many also support her because her opponent is black." Perhaps he should understand that not supporting Barack Obama isn't an attack on African Americans, just like "not supporting Clinton isn't an attack on feminism."
Chait also says that "there remains an unshakable core of Clinton fans whose loyalty is a matter of identity." With more than 90% of African American voters casting their ballots for Obama, and the women's vote more split, it's obvious that identity politics is a stronger factor for the Obama campaign.
Perhaps the generation that "takes women in the workforce for granted" needs to be reminded that women still continue to make just 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. In 2007, Clinton sponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act to strengthen the Equal Pay Act of 1963. She has spent her entire career working for women and families.
So yes, it is personal.
I am amused at Clinton's supporters' allegation that media-fostered sexism has undermined her campaign. Clinton's sour grapes are belied by the facts that she has been the beneficiary of the only "-isms" in this campaign; specifically, nepotism (wife of a former president) and elitism (Wellesley education, etc.).
Clinton's insistence on staying in the race to the detriment of Obama proves that she is not willing to do what is best for the party. Why then should we believe she would do what is best for the country?
Mark S. Roth