Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
sethgoldman
Published Letters: 198 Editor's Choice: 5
...pitchers are more likely to throw a strike to a batter of the same race. Earlier posts are correct, if the study is about race, you can't ignore the race of the other interested parties (batters, catchers, managers, fans, etc.).
Clinton (like her husband) is a master of making bold statements based on twisted facts, assuming nobody will notice the errors in logic as long as she sounds strong and confident. The fact is that "the other side" HAS released his tax returns and she HAS NOT. That is the only fact here. Yes, there may be other questions worth investigating about Obama's financial relationships, but the issue here is the tax returns and she is the one being secretive.
And in terms of having her cake and eating it too: Clinton is the one who says she will be able to withstand Republican attacks because she has no secrets and has been fully vetted. And here she is saying that she'll release the tax return information once she is the nominee. By her own logical support for her candidacy, shouldn't Democratic voters be given a chance to review the returns before the Republicans can?
Clinton is blasting Obama for 'giving speeches' in a speech of her own. What's the difference?
Clinton's entire campaign is based on the myth that she has a more robust record than the competition. I struggle to understand how the quantity or quality of her solutions actually differ from Obama.
To the extent that campaigns help us judge the leadership abilities of these people (and I'm not sure that they do), Clinton's campaign raised more $$ than anyone in 2007 and blew through it all without anywhere near the result she expected. This is poor management. She's firing people now but I still struggle to see evidence of all the leadership/management experience she claims to have.
Sometimes you need a lowlife to provide what the more legitimate supplier will not. A "real" PhD might have told Clemens to take some time off to rest. A "real" PhD might have told Pettitte to consider the same after his surgery. Then again, you could probably find a less scrupulous person with a real PhD who would have provided the same services as McNamee. The players wanted HGH and steroids and they found the only people who would provide them.
The problem here is that we are too focused on one lowlife and we treat him as the abberation. McNamee should not be singled out as much as he has been. He should be looked at as one of many. The failure of the last few months has been the narrowing down of a rampant problem in baseball (and all sports) to a list of 80 in the Mitchell report and finally to a he said/he said confrontation between two people. We know that there were McNamees and Clemens', not just in the Yankees clubhouse but in the clubhouses of the Mets (Radomski, etc.), Giants (Bonds, BALCO, etc.), Cardinals (McGwire) and Orioles (Palmiero, Sosa). There is no reason to believe that there wasn't a McNamee in every clubhouse in baseball. And as long as we continue to focus on Clemens and McNamee we can be sure this broad-based problem will remain.
If you put a typical Clinton supporter on the spot and asked about Clinton's legislative accomplishments I think you'd get a similar response. Despite the framing of this campaign as one of experience vs. rhetoric I would say that both candidates have pretty thin resumes when it comes to legislative leadership. There's only so much you can call your own having served less than 1 or 2 terms in the Senate.
Am I missing something? Sure, the numbers that appear here are not insignificant, but when you dig deeper the totals are really "just" the sum of smaller contributions from individuals who happen to work for the companies. Is it right to assume that these sums reflect the influence of big oil?
If I were to make a contribution to a campaign I would need to disclose the name of my employer. Would this increase the political influence/weight my employer has over a particular politician?
I just don't get it. I understand that corporate interests have huge influence in politics but I can't imagine that it's the result of some of their employees making individual contributions of up to $2,300. And I'm sure this influence is wielded in ways that make these contributions seem pretty benign.
Ad that appeared next to this article:
"10 Skinny Rules: I lost 9 lbs. in 11 days, just by following these 10 simple rules."
This whole discussion is another example of the media and the public falling for a strategy Clinton has gone back to over and over through this campaign. While the media reports on this he said/she said story, the public has to keep hearing that somebody (fill in the blank) has questioned Obama's electability. This is the strategy - to make headline news that associates Obama with something negative without going on record with actual criticism. Hopefully the public is smart enough to dismiss this but the tactic is to elevate a non-story with the intention of raising doubts about Obama's electability.
Clinton is one step short of saying "Obama is electable, as far as I know."
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
