Letters to the Editor
abe_jrdn
Published Letters: 58 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Popular Vote
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]this isn't over. Not by a long shot.
If Clinton can convince the delegates to give her the nod, I won't be happy about it but I WILL SUPPORT HER.
I will support the Democrat-either one.
Nasty primary battles-we have them every four years, even when all the candidates are white males. And each time people seem to think the supporters of the other leading candidates are hopelessly naive morons, if not the spawn of Satan. I don't care about the stupid petty resentments of the circular firing squad. People's emotions (on both sides) are making them stupid and bigoted (the bigotry against poorer rural whites in the other thread was just such a clear example of limbic-brained, us vs. them thinking).
We have two great candidates with strong platforms and teams made up of the brightest and most committed public servants out there. With each passing day it becomes clearer that the only empty suit, say-anything-to-win candidate in this race is McCain. I used to like him in 2000. For a Republican he seemed moderate and honest compared to Bush. Now it is clear he is far from it. Republicans just don't change their stripes. America has declined rapidly in the past eight years, has anybody noticed? With McCain it can only get worse.
-
jpincus
[Read the article: Look homeward, Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why does a few years of "community organizing," whatever the hell that really means, equate to being shot down while defending your country from Soviet hegemony?
It doesn't. One actually is direct experience with politics and working with American citizens to improve their lives. The other, while unfortunate and some would say heroic, in no way qualifies one to be president.
The creme de la creme for me was Obama's little tirade on the floor of the Senate this week picking on John McCain, who knows a helluva lot more about veterans issues than he does, while providing empty praise for McCain's military service.
It wasn't a "tirade". I'd like to see how you can spin this as having anything to do with how much each candidate knows about veterans issues. One candidate thinks all veterans of U.S. wars since 9/11 deserve more benefits and the other doesn't. And let's not forget the legislation was introduced by Jim Webb, who is also a veteran with extensive experience in veteran's issues. So your argument makes no sense. Try to look at the issues logically and not emotionally.
-
Annienap-The Homeless
[Read the article: Look homeward, Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Annienap- You are incorrect. Obama said there would no more homeless veterans, not that there would be no more homeless. He was talking about improvements to the quality of treatment for veterans.
So you see you had to twist and deceive about something he said to make him look bad. It seems there is quite a bit of this going on lately, with people telling us "don't vote for Obama" because "his wife said she hates America and has never been proud of it" "he said poor white people are racist and stupid" etc. etc. Then you make vague allusions about how, if you watch his body language reeeaallly closely, you can see he's lying! Now somebody tells us he murders people. Can't you people do better?
-
Michigan
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There were no rules telling him to take his name off the ballot. He did that on his own because he thought Hillary would lose to "Uncommitted"
Do you have any evidence that this is true?
The stated reason these candidates (not just Obama) removed their names from the ballot was because they didn't want to offend voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Which makes sense.
Exit polls from Michigan showed that Obama would get 35% to Clinton's 46%. 18% of Clinton supporters would have voted for Obama if they had the chance!
Many supporters of the other candidates stayed home rather than rush to the polls to vote for "uncommitted" just because John Conyers and the Michigan Democrats told them to. I understand Senator Clinton why would exaggerate the effectiveness of this effort but it is really desperate grasping at straws. None of the candidates even campaigned in Michigan. The primary was a sham, as many voters from Michigan have said themselves in these boards.
It may have been a mistake to remove their names, but as Senator Clinton herself said the votes "would not count for anything". Until she fell behind in the race, then she changed her position. But unfortunately the primary was still a total sham.
And please stop lying and saying Obama is the reason the vote didn't count or that a revote didn't happen. The Michigan Democratic party is to blame for both (and you can blame the DNC for the delegates not being seated, but it's not as if they didn't warn Michigan Dems they would not be seated well in advance of the primary.)