Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ TimBaird: Clinton's Record Vs. Obama's Record
[Read the article: It's OK to vote for Obama because he's black]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Full disclosure here: I'm a Hillary Clinton supporter.
If you go to the site recommened by Xrandadu Hutman what you will get are some selectively chosen bills Sen. Obama has 'sponsored' in the U.S. Senate and that also selectively dismisses Sen. Clinton's record.
If you want the real deal (on both Clinton and Obama) you should go directly to the source(s):
1. http://www.thomas.gov/ and use the search option to find legislation by Congressional member.
2. The more informative source is Project Vote Smart http://www.vote-smart.org where you can look up both Clinton's and Obama's voting records. Informative reading.
3. Finally, I suggest you go to this site (which has an abundance of financial/fundraising information on the candidates) and which is interesting reading on Sen. Obama's major donors.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Hope this helps!
-
This Is Just
[Read the article: No Hail Mary for Hillary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The final Democratic debate produces no miracles for the grouchy former front-runner..."
so juvenile.
It has been a long, hard campaign for both of these candidates. Sen. Clinton can never answer questions to the satisfaction of those who favor Sen. Obama, no matter how the questions are asked, how much sleep the candidates have had the night before, how "prepared" they are, how much they know, how the answers come across, who asks them...really, this list is nearly endless.
The fact that you even slant this article as "producing no miracles..." says something, to me, about your own internal biases and beliefs toward both of the candidates.
It is just more of the same unending hyper-sensitivity and hyper-criticism about Sen. Clinton. I dare say that if she held frontrunner status, Madden and other "journalists" (dare I call you such?) would be tearing her apart for something else.
-
If It Is "The Democratic Process"
[Read the article: Obama's got ground game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sheila Jackson Lee, a Clinton-supporting Democrat from Houston. But then she proceeded to ask whether caucuses should be eliminated in future nomination fights. "From my perspective, it is not the fully democratic process." It is, however, the Democratic process -- and the one by which the well-organized Obama campaign appears to be closing in on the nomination.
...then perhaps Obama's followers should a) stop the incessant campaign to squelch this process and let voters have the last word; b) encourage superdelegates to remain neutral until voters have their say; c) let superdelegates lead -- which is their role -- once primaries and caucuses have concluded; and d) acknowledge that caucuses aren't representative of Democratic voters, but simply a small fraction of Democratic voters.
-
@ UncleFester: "Bong Smoking" Conspiracy
[Read the article: Obama's got ground game]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Letters/comments in THIS story's thread aren't saying that Hillary should quit. But over the last several weeks I have read many, many letters/comments on other stories that did.
I don't think she should quit at all for a couple of very big reasons:
This is first and foremost a historic campaign in which many of the "politics-as-usual" rules don't apply -- from polling data, to media coverage, to voter turnout.
Voter turnout and participation alone is enough evidence for my second reason, which is to let the "democratic process" work and allow voters to have their say in who is the Democratic nominee.
It isn't a popular sentiment among MANY Obama followers and probably not among many Democratic Party insiders. But I would argue this no matter who the candidates were/are. I believe in the process and believe that shutting it down early disenfranchises voters and sends signals to our citizenry that we don't trust the process enough to let it (and us) work it. If there are problems in how it works, fine; let's fix the problems after the cycle. This is how democracy works and how it improves.
-
Why is it acceptable...
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to paint Hillary Clinton as "inauthentic" while Obama is allowed to speak quite eloquently from both sides of his mouth on trade, on Social Security, on health care, on his Iraq War votes, on the influence of special interests and lobbyists, and numerous other issues?
And why is it not acceptable for Hillary Clinton to "bridge the gap with the right" but to laud the same thing when Obama touts it?
I see and hear a tremendous amount of doublespeak from Obama and his followers and a lot of justification for his actions. This to me is not a good sign.
-
It's the letters here that are
[Read the article: Newest Clinton ad plays on security fears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...the most enlightening.
Once again it appears that Obama and his followers are "seeing" racism in an advertisement run by the Clinton campaign.
I believe there is some traction to the claim that whenever Obama receives a critical hit on his experience, or his voting record, or his rhetoric, his campaign spins it as racism.
That certainly sounds like "fear mongering" to me.
-
The Non-Solution Solution
[Read the article: A solution to McCain's Panama problem, with Obama's support]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This legislation is totally redundant. The law already recognizes that children born to military families in countries other than the U.S. are considered "naturalized" and thus eligible for all the benefits of U.S. "citizenship."
Grandstanding is what I'd call this...
-
@ Reality-based Liberal: Fears
[Read the article: Newest Clinton ad plays on security fears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appreciate your point of view.
I don't see this ad as racist for several reasons: Katrina, devastating floods in Washington State, killer snowstorms in the Midwest and Plains, power outages on the East Coast, wildfires in the West, downed airliners, air traffic snarls, bridge collapse in Minneapolis, exploding steam pipes in New York, and the Big Dig collapse in Boston.
These are emergencies that the president deals with all the time -- day and night -- at any hour.
There are no doubt people who will make the connection between "It's 3 a.m. ..." and "brown-skinned" Muslims after they see this ad. On the other hand, I don't consider myself extraordinarily perceptive and I thought about all of the emergencies we have had since 9/11 that DON'T INVOLVE terrorism, but that DO INVOLVE the safey, well-being and security of American citizens.
Just a friendly point of view!