Letters to the Editor
KateTex
Published Letters: 641 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Obama & Iraq
[Read the article: Who would the GOP rather face?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's how courageous Obama has been re the Iraq war. From a story on the front page of yesterday's NYTimes:
"Determined to be viewed as substantive, Mr. Obama kept his head down, declining Sunday talk show invitations for his first year, and consulted Senate elders for advice. He was cautious — even on the Iraq war, which he had opposed as a Senate candidate. He voted against the withdrawal of troops and proposed legislation calling for a drawdown only after he was running for president and polls showed voters favoring it."
Obama's stance(s) on the war seem patently political, calculated moves intended to advance his career with regard for ethics and lives lost coming in a poor second. He's gotten a lot of mileage from the Iraq business, but only because he's chosen to beat Hillary Clinton to death with it, with complicity on the part of the media, and the willingness of his supporters to do a certain amount of squinting.
-
@tompayne
[Read the article: Who would the GOP rather face?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The reality is that NO ONE knows how Obama would've voted on the Iraq war resolution had he actually been in the Senate and he has admitted as much - under pressure. In fact, he flat out states in "Audacity' that at that time he didn't believe the war was necessarily a bad thing. Then he speaks out in the Illinois legislature against the war. When he made it to the Senate (as a virtually unopposed candidate), he didn't vote for a troop drawn down until after pollsters indicated this would be safe. This isn't exactly a profile in courage, and it doesn't put Obama one millimeter ahead of Clinton in the character column. In spite of this notable lack of consistency, Obama has been allowed to make a tremendous amount of hay out of what doesn't even amount to dust on a barn floor.
-
@swinick - the ugliness factor
[Read the article: Who would the GOP rather face?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say: "The only reason why Obama's more vocal supporters constantly try to get her to drop out is that you want your guy to win"
Speaking of Obama's 'more vocal supporters', I just finished another long session of perusing reader comments on the NYTimes site. This evening's subject was ostensibly Obama's rather emphatic 'no' to the idea of his becoming Clinton's VP. As usual the comments quickly deteriorated into a free floating hate fest, with 99 percent of the hatred coming from Obama's supporters, directed toward the Clintons. The majority of these comments were brimming with disinformation/misinformation/no information. I find this escalating nastiness a very disturbing sign; it certainly doesn't bode well for the November election. If Obama doesn't get his fan base under control soon, he will almost certainly crash and burn. The alienation factor is definitely spiraling out of control.
-
Utter hypocrisy
[Read the article: Obama says Clinton ad "straight out of the Republican playbook"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If one bothers to read about Obama's entrance into Illinois politics, it's eminently clear that all along, he's been willing to get down in the dirt. In Mississippi, Obama's once again playing the Malcolm X 'hoodwink', 'bamboozle, 'okey dokey' game. For the uninitiated, these are code words aimed at black voters to reinforce the (disgraceful) charges of racism against the Clintons following SC. Obama has been attacking Hillary Clinton for a very long time now, but the media makes no mention of this, instead preferring to endlessly recycle the kitchen sink business to Clinton's disadvantage. Here's a link to a site which graphically demonstrates Obama's long history of snipes and attacks on Clinton:
http://www.attacktimeline.com/
-
@renegade
[Read the article: Who would the GOP rather face?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The latest stratagem being floated is a mail-in do-over in both FL and MI. This may be the most viable solution; it's certainly preferable to altogether alienating who knows how many millions of voters from the Democratic ticket come November. Would you really like your vote tossed in the waste can due to forces beyond your control? Don't think so.
-
@BrianL
[Read the article: Obama says Clinton ad "straight out of the Republican playbook"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton was ASKED by reporters whether she would entertain the notion of Obama as VP. It's not as if she held a press conference to announce this, something which all too many excited Obama fans are neglecting to take into account. Regardless of her timing, do you endorse the Malcolm X code words Obama is using In MS? The implication here, of course, is that Clinton would prefer that all blacks return to sitting in the back of the bus. Sorry, but I think this tactic is patently inflammatory, entirely undeserved, and basically, just plain crappy.
BTW, did you - or anyone else - take a look at the time line I posted?
-
@BrianS
[Read the article: Obama says Clinton ad "straight out of the Republican playbook"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say: "And why exactly should we take your "attack timeline" as a legitimate source of objective truth?"
Perhaps because it's sourced and lists verifiable quotes from a verifiable candidate to verifiable media on verifiable dates over a verifiably long period of time?
-
@picko
[Read the article: Obama says Clinton ad "straight out of the Republican playbook"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]<<Does the cognitive dissonance ever bother you?>>
I personally have never thought of Obama as a 'nice guy', so no cognitive dissonance here. What the time line shows is that Obama has been negative on Clinton going back at least two years. And yet he's been allowed to skate for far, far too long on the manufactured image of a 'new kind of politician' who could magically create a new age of unity - something he patently isn't and could never do. His whole campaign was originally based on this cynically faux image and is precisely what gave him his original traction (augmented, of course, by the newly minted racist Clintons). Mr. Nice Guy vs. The Dragon Bitch? Never believed it, never will. So what are we left with now? Another politician on the make, getting nastier by the moment (witness the renewed 'okey dokes" in MS, something which is extraordinarily offensive). Vote for Obama if you think he'll truly be effective. But please, can we all just drop the pretense that he's something new and special?
-
@picko
[Read the article: Obama says Clinton ad "straight out of the Republican playbook"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would guess they were insinuating that Obama doesn't have what it takes be to CIC. If so, I'm okay with that, because I happen to think this is true. Besides, ever heard of someone getting sued for implying that someone else is "too nice"? A bit different from the 'monster' characterization, isn't it?