Letters to the Editor
burlydee
Published Letters: 283 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Obama is the Best Choice
[Read the article: In the NYT primary, it's Clinton and McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]billcap - so if Laura Bush wanted to run for President, you would argue that she had the right experience? Please... The fact is that no one really has the experience to be president except the president. Yet the media keeps letting Hillary use this false argument. What initiatives did she spearhead? What decisions did she make as first lady? By your argument, anyone who works in the White House has experience to be President.
To me, my vote for Obama is simple. He has the chance to unite the country under a liberal orthodoxy. Hillary promises 4 years of gridlock. She wants to refight the battles of the 90s. No thanks. Obama provides leadership and judgment, that is my opinion, and that is why i'm voting for him. Hillary is divisive - look how she is running her campaign. She is using every dirty trick in the book. Now, some will say Obama needs to get ready for the Republican smear machine. But I'm not voting for the Republicans either.
The way the Clinton's view the electorate is sickening and mirrors the way Republicans how governed for the last 8 years. Lets find the people who agree with me, and screw everyone else. The 51% strategy leads to gridlock - I think Obama represents a new way.
I also, like many other posters, don't believe Hillary can win. I will vote for her if she gets the nom, but I don't think she has solid Democratic support. Liberals don't like her, independents don't like her, and Republicans loathe her. Her main support is derived from hardcore party partisans and that won't be enough to win the White House.
If Hillary wasn't Bill's wife, she wouldn't be the front-runner. And she is the front-runner not because of any bounce she gets from Bill, but because of name recognition. Pure and simple, she is the most famous person in the race. As the country has gotten to know Obama, the gap has closed significantly. Hopefully, Obama can close the gap by Feb. 5th.
-
The Clinton's are Dirty Politics
[Read the article: My sanest conversation on TV, ever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Clinton's have dragged this race into the mud, and they have done so purposely. Anyone who doesn't see that, is deluding themselves. Why do you think Bill was going around saying "The press is treating Obama with kid gloves because..." HINT, HINT. They have been using coded language the entire time.
As to Hillary's infamous quote, you can bury your head in the sand if you want, but beyond the race-coded language, is more truth than anyone knows.
Anyone who would credit LBJ more so than MLK with the Voting Rights Acts is a fool or is dealing from the bottom of the deck. Plain and simple. First of all, why would a presidential candidate compare themselves, in a time of War, to LBJ who resigned because of Vietnam. So either she is a fool, or there was something more to the story.
Why, when the campaign is turning to South Carolina, would Clinton equate MLK to LBJ, when she KNOWS such a thing may offend African-Americans, who make up large part of the voting Dems in SC? So either she made a bone-headed statement or there is something more to the story.
Plus, what does Hillary's quote say about her perspective presidency? I have no big ideas, but when a big idea gets to my desk, I'll sign it. I have the vision of a bureacrat?
And lastly Joan, you are simply misreading history. When the voting rights act passed, 70% of white Americans favored it. It was 9 years after Brown v. Board of Education, after the Southern Manifesto which voters rejected, after the Supreme Court took the lead (among government entities) on racial equality. Was there obstruction in Congress? Of course? There are always some fools who are on the wrong side of history. Hillary's comments are the equivalent of women crediting Woodrow Wilson for the passage of the 19th Amendment. Its insulting and Clinton knew this. She knew she was going to lose in South Carolina, indeed all the South. So she gave herself an excuse. Race. But if she thinks Democrats are going to come running to her in a general election, she is sadly mistaken. She shouldn't even be running for President. Two families shouldn't control the presidency for 24 years.
Nominate Clinton, and McCain will win.
-
30% of the white vote...
[Read the article: My sanest conversation on TV, ever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think, and hope, that those people who voted for clinton would be willing to vote for Obama in a general election. Though no one would argue that racism is dead, I don't think it is the all consuming death knell its made out to be by some Hillary supporters.
Thrasher if you really believe people come here to read your diatribes... you might be seriously delusional.
-
My problem with this post...
[Read the article: South Africa gets an earful about Mike Tyson's visit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't have much use for the violence/sex argument, rape is rape - the psychological
I do have a problem with the feminist argument that the dominant culture encourages rape, only in that it insinuates that if there was a change in the dominant culture, rape would be eliminated. And from what I understand about what motivates a person to rape (anger, loss of control, frustrated sexual desires) those won't go away
However my problem with this post, is - Why are we concerned about Mike Tyson's visit to South Africa? Obviously South Africa has a history of problems with this in their country (and many would argue we have the same problems here) as their accused President demonstrates. But it seems as if South Africans put the appropriate pressure on their media and government and were able to limit Mike Tyson's exposure. Good for them, but why should we have strong feelings about it...
I mean, why single out South Africa? You can write this post a hundred times about 100 different countries.
Are we suppose to take note just because Mike Tyson is involved? The American media wouldn't need Mike Tyson, if they were really serious about addressing the problems women face in South Africa.