Letters to the Editor
burlydee
Published Letters: 283 Editor's Choice: 7
-
billcap
[Read the article: If Clinton gets the nomination, would Michelle Obama support her?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you originally wrote: "Primaries are play-time. General elections are for the grown-ups. Let's hope the Obama folks realize that if their guy doesn't win rather than sulking in the bedrooms."
By implication, Obama's supporters aren't grown ups. They would "sulk in their bedrooms" if they don't get what they want. Those are your words, I didn't put anything in your math. I will vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination. But I understand people who won't vote for her. That is their right, and Hillary has to win their vote. I'm not voting for anyone because they have a D by their name. Especially if I don't think they can implement their agenda in Washington.
Bill Clinton is seen as good president by most Democrats because he held office for 8 years. No one ever mentions how he lost the house in 94 or failed to get any substantive progressive policy passed. I don't think Hillary will be any better. Elect Hillary and the house will be Republican in '10. And the White House will be back in Republican hands in '12. So I don't want anyone lecturing other Dems on how they have to use their vote. Candidates should inspire people - not make them choose between the lesser of two evils.
Some of the stuff I wrote wasn't all directed at your post. I just believe that the Clinton camp is consumed in negatives - vote her or the Republicans will smear Obama, make fun of our candidate, capture the white house, etc. I don't believe her campaign is propelled by any hope/ideas. That may be a stupid idea to you, but I call it leadership.
Yes, she and Obama showed up in the Senate and said ye or nay to many of the same things. But Clinton sitting comfortably in her Senate seat voted for the Iraq war. Obama spoke out against it. Clinton voted for the Kyle/Lieberman amendment. Obama did not. Clinton votes with the majority most of the time, as does Obama. But its where you take a stand that makes a difference.
-
damnthatxandu
[Read the article: Despite Web success, Obama loses Silicon Valley]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you go from post to post, claiming that Obama supporters are going to call the author racists and making outrageous claims about Obama and his supporters, but it never happens. The people who criticized this article made a good point - if you check the demographics of Silicon valley, it is mostly Hispanic and Asian. Why don't you try, just once, addressing some of the substantive points people make? You aren't fooling anyone with your diatribes. Seriously, grow up!
damnthatxandu said:
Any thing seen as the least positive for Clinton is immediately suspect by Obama supporters. I'm sure the next post to pop up will say you're racist for even suggesting that the vote was even real. And of course if you argue the point, you must be a Clinton shill.
And of course, REAL democrats could NEVER vote for Clinton. There MUST of been some mistake!!! Or obviously they were Latino or Asian. How racist to think anything else!
OF COURSE, all techie people MUST support Obama. NO one at Google or anywhere on the net ever supports Clinton.
And, didn't you know, it's a plot. Clinton didn't REALLY win California! Everyone everywhere HATES her. So how could that ever be?
-
skylark - huh?
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So people now have to ask Hillary Clinton's permission before they run for President? Was she supposed to run unopposed? Who is writing the script all politicians are suppose to follow, you or the man behind the curtain?
-
The Cause?
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did any of you actually read the piece or is there some light that goes off to Clinton supporters that flashes red when something is written they might not agree with. Its like every post today, you look in the letter section and there are 10 raving Clinton supporters denouncing Obama and anyone who dare support him at every turn.
The author tried everything to placate you people. She apparently is not allowed to vote for Obama, for any reason. Progress? I don't think so. And could all the tired women suffrage arguments stop - none of you were even around for the women's suffrage movement. But many of you were probably around for Jim Crow in the South. So stop playing the victim card and start using some substantive arguments to sway people to your side.
-
damnthatxandu
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Could you please provide documentation of some of the misogynist propaganda the Obama campaign has thrown towards Clinton? I would love to see it.
-
What Struck Me...
[Read the article: Will conservatives vote for John McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is the almost fervent hate Republicans have, not for Democratic Leaders, but for Dems as a whole. I find the NY Post editorial boards "conciliation" rhetoric striking.
"He may be just what is needed to attract the independents needed to keep the Democrats out of the White House -- and the true believers at CPAC would do well to keep that in mind"
It is striking because of how devoid of policy arguments it is. The only goal is to keep Dems from the White House, to win. They don't want to win over any Dems at all, they want to rule with 51%. They've learned nothing from the last 8 years.
From what I can tell, the main reason conservatives don't like McCain is because his not as rabidly and blindly partisan as they are. He supports the war. He supports their economic world view. He just doesn't HATE the enemy enough. And the real enemy isn't terrorists or immigrants (though they are sometimes enemy), the enemy is liberals. McCain in the past has been unwilling to blindly hate Dems and to blindly support the president and nothing makes them angrier. Outside of immigration, I haven't heard one policy complaint from Repugs about McCain. He is not "conservative" enough, we're told, without anyone ever defining conservatism. Its like the term conservative or liberal have no substantive meaning behind them anymore, they are white collar gangs. CPAC must be a sad, sad place to be.