Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ juneausmog: Accurate And Penetrating
[Read the article: Daily Kos writers' "strike" gets ugly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But will Obama's followers get it? Unlikely. Most of them revere the guy; those who don't (the few "sane" posters at Salon) at least have something in the way of record/facts to support their candidate. Still, that doesn't necessarily mean a lot of them don't bash Hillary and her supporters whenever they have a chance.
Every "liberal" blog site I've been to (other than unashamedly pro-Clinton) bashes and trashes Clinton and her supporters all the time with juvenile monikers, name-calling, ad-hominem attacks against posters, use of the "coded" sexist language, reprinting and repeating false information about her record, her accomplishments, and about her campaign ads (the "darkening of Obama's skin color is one example).
I stopped going to Daily Kos a while back because the information they post is the equivalent of eighth-grade essay writing. The net blogs aren't entirely made up of juvenile coloring books, but many of them are becoming embarassments to any reasonably intelligent adult who wants accurate information instead of school-aged sniping and snarking.
-
@ Happy Friend: Risk-Averse
[Read the article: The crazy uncles in Obama's attic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is stupid to suggest that Obama's stance on Iraq was easy and risk free as oppossed to Hillary's. Obama had ambitions to seek higher office. Illinois is less of a blue state than NY. By being reasonable while the majority of politicians were stupidly joining the chorus for war took wisdom and balls.
His speech WAS risk-free: he was trying to get reelected; he spoke out in the most liberal district in Illinois; he hasn't been as principled since he was elected to the U.S. Senate; he has ducked votes on issues there, too.
If you think that "joining the chorus for war" as you call it was "risk free" I suggest you look at votes and comments in the U.S. Senate leading up to that vote; and I suggest you read the resolution itself.
The more I read about Obama the less I trust and believe him. He's letting more info out in dribbles about his "friendship" with Tony Rezko and his 20-year association with Wright, all the while knowing about Wright's "controversial" sermons and about Rezko's background.
All of this information is available on the Internet if people will do a little research.
-
@ miriald:
[Read the article: Wait a minute: Iron whose shirt?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What exactly has Hillary done that qualifies her more to be president? Not a thing. No one is truly "qualified" to be president coming in for a first term. It's a job like no other and just like Abraham Lincoln and FDR and JFK, whoever is elected (pray gods it's a Democrat) will learn just like they did.
Well, if you trust Daily Kos for your "insight" into Obama's record, that doesn't count. Go to thomas.gov if you want a real and honest record of accomplishments.
BTW: HRC has had 22 bills signed into law since she was elected to the U.S. Senate; she has worked with Democrats and Republicans to get things done.
This is HRC's SECOND Senate term, not the first. She's rated #9 (out of 100 senators) for her legislative efforts, her ability to work with others, and for getting things done.
2BTW: Listing every bill that Obama has sponsored or cosponsored isn't a "record" of accomplishment.
Would anybody be absolutely 100 percent prepared to be president? No. Stop comparing Obama to Abraham Lincoln. The times are radically different today than they were then. I'd argue that about FDR, as well, except he is at closer to contemporary history and he gave us many of the things we hold dear today: Social Security, labor organizing, Public Works, first female cabinet official (Frances Perkins), and his wife!
-
Reasoning Abilities May Not Be Enough
[Read the article: Obama's faith in the reasoning abilities of the American public]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I listened to Obama's speech, not quite sure what to expect, but knowing it would be a really tough task to maintain his integrity as an African American with ties to his church and his pastor and also as a viable presidential candidate trying to find common ground on race.
I was struck by his bluntness -- especially in regard to the racial stereotypes expressed by his white grandmother -- and felt uncomfortable in the rawness of this exposed side of his grandmother (in part because my parents were extremely bigoted and frequently used the "N" word in my presence).
As beautiful and honest as his remarks were, the damage has already been done by Wright and, in some respect by Obama for not taking his pastor personally to-task when Wright uttered some of his more fiery rhetoric and rage in Obama's presence.
Several analysts have pointed out that Obama is not a known quantity, still, by a good many people out there in Americaland and is still seen as an outsider of the political process, both by his race and by his theme. This speech, in fact, may hurt him more among those people whom he needs to convince, heading into the last primaries, that he offers a new direction for them and the country.
We shall see in the days and weeks to come how effective Obama's words are, were and will be.