Letters to the Editor
KateTex
Published Letters: 641 Editor's Choice: 4
-
@celia
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ALL of the other candidates removed their names from the MI ballot. Granted, Hillary left her name on there but that seems to be a contradiction with the pledge that she did sign
This is terribly misleading. In a rather cynical ploy, Barack Obama lobbied the other (male) candidates to remove their names from the MI ballot at the last minute. Edwards jumped right in. Dennis Kucinich turned in the paperwork a bit too late, and his name did remain on the ballot. The idea behind Obama's rather untranscendental ploy was to get as many votes for 'uncommitted' as possible with the idea that this would embarrass putative front runner Hillary Clinton. Just the guys having a good old time, you see. Obama knew he couldn't score diddley squat MI, so this was no big risk, but it paid off big time in Iowa, a state which Hillary unfortunately all but ignored. This is one of the many instances in which Obama has gamed the system.
As for The Pledge: it said nothing more than that the candidates would not campaign in FL or MI - a pledge which Hillary honored, but which Obama did not, as he did campaign in FL. The pledge, however, did NOT call for the candidates to remove their names from the ballot. Nor was there any rule in place which stated that votes in MI and FL would not count.
Now, wouldn't it be nice if the frigging media would do their job and report such things? Voters might be just a tad more informed. But we can't have that, now can we?
-
2000 redux
[Read the article: The ugliest election]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Scalia stated that "the counting of votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to petitioner and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."
FL and MI, anyone? The past is prologue to the future, indeed.
-
The question no one seems to be asking
[Read the article: She's in it to spin it]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why was it that Obama saw fit to remove his name from the MI ballot, but not the FL ballot? Would one of his partisans care to answer this question? Was he moved by principle in MI, but not FL, where his campaign ran TV ads in violation of The Pledge, but has never been sanctioned for doing so? Inquiring minds would really like to know.
-
@NewDeal
[Read the article: The ugliest election]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Both the Clinton and Obama camps agreed before a single vote was cast this year that Michigan and Florida would not be included because they broke party rules.
You are dead wrong. All that was agreed to was this: the candidates would not campaign in either state. Absolutely nothing was said about votes not counting.
Furthermore, would you like to address the fact that SC, NH, and IA all moved up their primaries with no penalties whatsoever attached? Why the singling out of MI and FL? Possibly because this was favorable-to-Clinton territory?
And by the way, thanks for all the compliments ("stupid", "moronic"...). I'm wondering how you came by your screen name, as it really doesn't seem to compute. Let's just say Franklin and Eleanor would not have approved.
-
@NewDeal again
[Read the article: The ugliest election]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]By the way, since when does a Republican like you speak for Franklin and Eleanor?
I take it the definition of a 'Republican' is anyone who doesn't favor Obama's candidacy. So, when did the Democratic party begin defining itself so narrowly? Some of us must've missed the memo. Might as well call me a Communist. Makes about as much sense.
-
Is absolutely everything on this planet a reference to Obama???
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dial it back, folks. This is utterly ridiculous. The worst part is that Obama's campaign has jumped right in to fan the flames. So predictable. And just sickening, really sickening.
How many media figures have referred - over and over again - to Hillary Clinton in terms of death, even murder? Think about it.
And for anyone out there so deluded as to believe that Hillary hasn't been threatened, think again. But forgive me, I've lost my place - it's always always always about Obama.
-
Robert Kennedy, Jr. speaks
[Read the article: Argus Leader editor responds to RFK controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For all of you baying for the blood of Hillary Clinton, this is what the son of Robert Kennedy had to say today (from the NYTimes):
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview Friday evening. "I've heard her make that argument before," Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cell phone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis for the holiday weekend. "It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign."
Mr. Kennedy said he has been traveling and had not seen the video or read Mrs. Clinton's comments, but said his support of Mrs. Clinton has not wavered.
Too bad the Obama campaign had to portray Hillary's remarks as "unfortunate" and as having "no place in this campaign". But then, it's all about Obama all the time in all places. Obama just lost some more votes with this one, no question about it. Lots of people are getting very weary of his constant victimhood by association. Very, very weary.