Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 847 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@newyorkmy
[Read the article: Big weekend news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Independent is not a party. "Green," "Socialist Workers," "Communist," and even "Libertarian" are parties.
Joe Lieberman is a Republican who caucuses with the Democratic Party for most social and domestic programs and platform planks, and votes with the war party on everything else. This is exactly like Hillary Clinton.
I don't know if Joe Lieberman is a "true believer" in, among other things, the right-of-return and the absolute correctness of the stance that no quarter is to be given to Palestinians, or if he is simply an opportunistic huckster (I suspect a little of both), but his actions bely a real split from mainline Democratic ideals despite that the media tries to say different. But peace does not have a lobby, and GE, Raytheon, Boeing, Mattel and Northrup Grunman have a vested, controlling interest in the media which touts their wars. Joe is just one of their unwitting spokespersons.
Similarly, Clinton shares many of Lieberman's pro-corporate, pro-empire views. I don't know if she's a "true believer" either, but I suspect that she's just siding with the zeitgeist most likely in her estimation to garner her support. Ironically, votes and delegates is not what she seeks -- otherwise, she would have backed away from her unwise support of the AUMF, and better still, never voted for it in the first place. Clinton understands that votes and caucuses and delegates aren't what matters, its money and power. That's what makes her claims of disenfranchisement so specious and transparent to some Clinton opponents on the left (eg, me).
Of course, votes, delegates and caucuses do matter, that was part of her miscalculation. Now, she is scrambling to appear populist and pro-Democracy.
Let me make it clear that I am a Clinton opponent first and foremost and an Obama supporter second (or, behind Gravel, Kuchinich, Dodd and Edwards, sixth). I come from the far left and I am not ashamed of that.
What I do believe to be shameful is the insistence by some that there is anything remotely liberal or progressive about Clinton. Obama, too, is a centrist. However, his opposition to the war in Iraq bumps him far and away in front of Clinton in terms of credibility for me.
That he is agile, literate, eloquent, accommodating and classy also help greatly. Clinton comes off as grating, shrill, disingenuous, calculating, manipulative and intentionally divisive. So, Obama may be imperfect, but Clinton is deeply tarnished.
And sure, the longer Obama is in the klieg lights, the more the cracks show. Just as it was never a given that Clinton would win the nomination despite "everyone's" expectations, Obama's presidency is not a sure thing.
Well, you dance with the girl you come with, so, if we can all agree that McCain can under no circumstance occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, then your support for Obama is paramount.
Any dissent is intolerable.
Obama was not my first choice, and, had she won the nomination, Clinton is far from my last as long as the Republican Party has an even more deplorable criminal running for office. A Democrat has to win this November, period.
Your support for Obama is literally a matter of life and death.
-
@rufus
[Read the article: Big weekend news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]clitnon
Nice one.
-
Joan
[Read the article: Big weekend news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why don't you write a thing or two about why John McCain left his first wife and the mother of his children for his current wife?
-
Joan,
[Read the article: Big weekend news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey check this out.. you know this Greenwald guy? Why isn't he talking about how Obama's church will hurt him?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/02/goldfarb/index.html
-
There's no "there" there
[Read the article: Big weekend news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can we stop feeding this transparent concern troll and get back to talking about how McCain left his crippled wife, the mother of his children, for a wealthy heiress thus launching his dubious political career (Keating 5!)?
Or how he courted John Hagee not to gain inroads in improving a blighted urban community (Obama's claimed motivation for joining Trinity), but to court racist, xenophobic, apocalyptic Christian Zionists?
How about his plan to fix the economy by encouraging consumers to purchase more gas?
New York, NY's arguments, like most of the tolling on here, lack substance upon closer examination. Either you are for the policies and the platforms of the Democratic Party at least to the extent that you can hold your nose and vote for whomever the nominee ends up being in order to prevent further damage to the world and country by Republicans.
I may personally consider Hillary Clinton to be a despicable near criminal, an opportunist and a hack, but she has my vote in November if it means no President McCain. Immediately afterwards I will bathe in scalding hot water and scrub the shame from my skin with one of the Fallafel Luffah things until the pain of my raw, chaffed skin outweighs the pain of putting that jerk in office.
That you can't bring yourself to do the same of Senator Obama calls into question your motives. Hopefully this will be the last time I have to address you directly or indirectly.
Vote Democrat, it is literally a matter of life and death.
-
If..
[Read the article: AIPAC conference reignites fight between McCain and Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If I had 150 Israeli nukes aimed at my head, I'd want to arm as well.
Israel may have a right to defend itself, but its posture will net undesirable results.
Ahmedenijad is practically a figurehead (think Nancy Pelosi, or worse, Ryan Seacrest), why is so much attention paid to what this fool has to say?