Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ little lord baltimore & others: Regarding Your Posts
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've posted it numerous times and, strangely, all the Hillary supporters seem to ignore it. I agree with you that it is ironic that the Hillary is so enthusiastically trying to create a suspicion of wrong doing in connection with Obama and Rezko. The saddest and most surreal moment was when she accused Obama of being worse than Ken Starr.
I read the Sun Times</> article you posted, long before it was posted by you. Since then, Sweet has also raised additional questions, as has ABC News. The latest Sun Times post link is here:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_and_his_taking_que.html
Please don't lump "Hillary supporters" into a group. As I have pointed out numerous times, we do not think in one mind, just as Obama's followers don't think in one mind. To engage in generalizations has no benefit and simply reinforces "hard" lines and hard feelings.
-
@ David Blixt: Tough And Fair
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]David --
I think you can say that. I wrote to one of the news outlets this week and said, essentially, that I expect the media to ask tough questions of all candidates. However -- and really all I have ever asked -- is that the media be TOUGH AND FAIR. I don't think that is asking too much at all.
-
@ little lord baltimore: Obama's Missed Votes
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't smear anybody; I do my homework and research. The NV record below is on several issues of importance to safety, national security, constitutional law, and children's health.
To wit:
-- Expressing support for Gen. Petraeus and U.S. Armed Forces. Clinton voted "No"; OBAMA=NV. (9/20/2007)
-- Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act. Clinton voted "Yes"; OBAMA=NV. (7/26/2007)
-- Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees (e.g., habeus corpus rights). Sen. Clinton voted "Yes"; OBAMA=NV.(7/19/2007)
-- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales "No Confidence" vote. Sen. Clinton voted "Yes"; OBAMA=NV. (6/11/2007)
-- State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization. Sen. Clinton voted "Yes"; OBAMA=NV. (9/20/2007)
Additionally, Sen. Obama is chair of the Subcommittee on NATO and Europe of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but he has not held one meeting of this subcommittee, which is responsible for our relations with NATO and Europe on everything from military actions and diplomacy to humanitarian concerns in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.
-
@ Reality-based Liberal: What About John Kerry's Principles?
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton can ditch all of her "principles" regarding choice, civil liberties, the environment and government for regular people, by endorsing John McCain over Obama.
I don't see anybody going nuclear on John Kerry (an Obama supporter, by the way) who postulated asking John McCain to be his running mate in 2004. Was John McCain any more liberal then?
-
@ KcM: Your Math
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As I have noted elsewhere, superdelegates will use pledged delegates as only one factor in their determination. As much as everybody would like to make it only about this, it just ain't so.
Another fact: Sen. Obama cannot win without superdelegates</> either, so it's disingenuous of his campaign -- and you -- to act as if his nomination is a done deal.
Still this fact: As I mentioned above, superdelegates will look at several factors when they make their determination and these numbers will shift, as well. Two of these important considerations are which candidate is able to draw core Democratic voters (e.g., blue-collar, working-class) and which candidate is best able to win Northeastern industrial states, South-Central states, moderate Southern states, and states with industries like coal (WV, IN), for example.
Barack Obama has not won any of these states, either in primaries or caucusus. So, where you see simple "math", I see complexities that even superdelegates are looking at right now.
And finally: Everybody is using these "pledged delegates" as proof positive that Obama will receive the nomination. However, many states that held primaries and caucuses have yet to hold their state conventions, where these "pledged delegate" totals will shift between candidates even before we arrive in Denver. That is no doubt what happened in California. We will see movement in these numbers from now until the convention.
"Reality" cuts many ways. It isn't a simple matter of pledged delegate totals=nomination for either candidate.
-
@ little lord baltimore: Significant Policy? Significant Legislation?
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really don't see how calling the ACT to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission insignificant, or how a "No Confidence" vote against AG Alberto Gonzales isn't significant.
And frankly, the comment that Sen. Clinton's legislative accomplishments aren't "significant" simply blows my mind. I can understand that you're an Obama follower. However, and as I have posted before, you don't do yourself or Sen. Obama any favors by misstating, minimizing and downplaying Sen. Clinton's record. And if you want a complete record, I suggest you go to the Thomas legislative database.
Finally, in answer to the question about FISA: I thought I answered it. We have a disagreement, apparently, about what constitutes "significant policy measures", since you believe that Sen. Clinton's NVs on two FISA amendments constitutes more "significant" policy measures than others.
There doesn't seem much more to say. We agree to disagree...
-
@ KcM: It's Called Politics For a Reason
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's called "negotiation and persuasion." What do you think Obama followers are doing and will do?
Do you really think Obama's followers are going to go to county and state conventions and NOT persuade Clinton or Edwards supporters to change their status? Do you honestly believe that they or Clinton delegates won't be making phone calls to pledged delegates to persuade them?
This has been the case for, oh, about as long as the Democratic Party has been in existence.
And I thought you understood the political process, KcM!