Letters to the Editor
KateTex
Published Letters: 641 Editor's Choice: 4
-
@Kingbreaker
[Read the article: New Clinton camp spin contradicts old Clinton camp spin]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rezko as smokescreen? I can't see it this way, because: Obama's WHOLE campaign was originally based on his (now rather tired) hope and change theme, the idea that he would be a complete departure from the wicked old ways of Washington. This is the hook with which he not only snagged possibly his largest voter bloc - idealistic younger voters, but with which he captured the imagination of a far wider public.
Logically, Rezko and the story of how Obama came to power in Chicago should put the lie to his claim of being a transformational candidate. Obama, as we have learned, is actually right out of a much more traditional mold. So, take that claim of ethical/moral superiority away and what are we left with? A presidential candidate with a rather thin resume and a lot of ringing but vague promises, a guy no one really knows.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has long been one of the most famous women in the world and ASSUMED to carry a lot of baggage, including a lot of baggage she has likely never set eyes on. So, Clinton's the WYSIWYG candidate. In fact, she's beyond WYSIWYG; she's a screen onto which people have cast some rather vile fantasies. And yet Clinton has survived and even thrived.
So tell me again, why are we still supposed to pretend Obama lives on a moral and ethical plane far superior to Clinton's, and will never ever descend to Clintonian depths? What, exactly, IS his advantage?
-
@zzigurrat
[Read the article: No Texas-size victory for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say: "So far this year, open primaries have worked well for Obama. However, a small but decisive number of Republicans in Texas decided to switch parties and vote to deny Obama the inevitable. This really deserves more careful coverage."
Watch what you ask for. There's a whole lot of anecdotal evidence that, once McCain had the nomination in the bag, some of those open primaries worked well for your guy because Republicans who intend to vote for McCain in the general, crossed over and voted for Obama. The NYTimes even covered this - in Texas. As they say, nothing's inevitable but death and taxes, and that includes Obama's candidacy.
-
Goes to Obama's character
[Read the article: The "Rezko" game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I posted the following elsewhere on this site, but believe it's relevant here. This was a response to another reader's belief that Rezko, just like Whitewater, constitutes a smokescreen:
Rezko as smokescreen? I can't see it this way, because: Obama's WHOLE campaign was originally based on his (now rather tired) hope and change theme, the idea that he would be a complete departure from the wicked old ways of Washington. This is the hook with which he not only snagged possibly his largest voter bloc - idealistic younger voters, but with which he captured the imagination of a far wider public.
Logically, Rezko and the story of how Obama came to power in Chicago should put the lie to his claim of being a transformational candidate. Obama, as we have learned, is actually right out of a much more traditional mold. So, take that claim of ethical/moral superiority away and what are we left with? A presidential candidate with a rather thin resume and a lot of ringing but vague promises, a guy no one really knows.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has long been one of the most famous women in the world and ASSUMED to carry a lot of baggage, including a lot of baggage she has likely never set eyes on. So, Clinton's the WYSIWYG candidate. In fact, she's beyond WYSIWYG; she's a screen onto which people have cast some rather vile fantasies. And yet Clinton has survived and even thrived.
So tell me again, why are we still supposed to pretend Obama lives on a moral and ethical plane far superior to Clinton's, and will never ever descend to Clintonian depths? What, exactly, IS his advantage?
-
Short answer: YES
[Read the article: Can the Clinton campaign take the heat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Any more inane questions/insinuations/political ads masquerading as journalism?
-
@mblackst
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say: "Has anyone noticed that NBC is in the tank for Hillary?"
I say: Well, well, well, so how does it feel now that you perceive the shoe being on the other foot? Everything was hunky dory as long as your guy Obama was receiving nothing but hosannas with no questions asked by the media. Now that Clinton is receiving a modicum of decent press, you cry "No fair!"
Reading through the comments on this thread is instructive. The naked petulance evident in so many messages from Obama supporters is plain as day. It seems they believe this campaign was supposed to be a walk in the park for their candidate, no questions asked, while Hillary Clinton should be forced to walk on a bed of nails in perpetuity. And I simply adore the magical thinking that leads to "Your candidate has to quit while mine's [maybe] ahead."
I have great respect for Senator Clinton and firmly believe she is by far our best chance to start digging out of the mess this country's in. In contrast, I have no respect for those Obama supporters who find it necessary to sling mud her way every time they hit the keyboard. Can I really visualize myself voting for a candidate who makes this kind of supporter feel good? No, not really.
-
Headline
[Read the article: Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whoever wrote the headline for this, uh, investigative bit has a bright future in store at the American Spectator. You know what they say: God don't like ugly. But damn, does it sell.
-
@tom payne
[Read the article: Let 'em duke it out]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You say: "Strong, smart women do very well these days (especially if they're white). I have a family full of them"
Well then, I hope they slap you right upside your smarmy face next time you address a woman as Ko-Tex, then go on to refer to another woman, an extremely accomplished one, as a 'bitch' and a 'broad'. I have great difficulty giving any credibility to what you have written, given the previous.
BTW, I was around for the Sixties, too, and Obama ain't no MLK. Although he is pretty good at the plagiarizing bit.