Readers write about gender and race in election '08, antiwar campaign and media coverage, and the use of poor grammar.
Gender and race matter less in '08 than ever before
Regarding the Oct. 26 article, "Clinton's gender poses challenge in Iowa": Voting based on gender is nothing new in this country. We've been doing it since 1788, when George Washington was elected.
At that time, the idea of electing someone who wasn't a white male landowner would have been ludicrous.
Since women and minorities have gained the right to vote, voting outside the "white male ticket" has been considered so preposterous that only white male married (or widowed) Protestants could be elected.
The glaringly few exceptions only reinforce this rule.
Until now, the idea that our president has to be a white male has been so ingrained in the country's psyche that those from other groups that dared challenge it weren't taken seriously.
The fact that we have both a woman and an African-American making a serious bid for the White House is actually a sign that race and gender are less and less of a consideration for the voting public, not more.
Antiwar camp needs more coverage
In response to Kaveh Afrasiabi's Oct. 30 Opinion piece, "The cost of American bellicosity toward Iran," and Jerry Lanson's Oct. 30 Opinion piece, "War protests: Why no coverage?": I want to commend the Monitor on publishing two articles on subjects that do not make mainstream media enough.
Mr. Afrasiabi's piece was an excellent and informative piece, which made points about the subject that needs to be publicized to get the public informed about this situation in Iran.
It's only when this information is out there that we in the public can respond in an informed manner.
Mr. Lanson's piece was about the lack of coverage on the antiwar protests that were nationwide over this past weekend.
He points out the absolute hypocrisy of the mainstream media when it comes to broadcasting the public's point of view about this illegal war.