Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ Anonymous
[Read the article: The knives come out in South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is fair to go after her for riding on her husband's coattails--when being married to a president is precisely the special experience Clinton is bringing before the public as to why she is more qualified to be president than Obama. Her Senate record would not distinguish her in a similar way.
That attitude is part of the problem. You don't know what Hillary Clinton did in Washington and have a rather "common" take on this particular argument.
I'm afraid that your take on things is a common one. I'm afraid that many like you will not look at Obama's record in the Senate (it's far more impressive than hers) and say those who are for Obama are trying to vote for a black man. Those who vote against Clinton must be "hillary haters" or sexist. It's a shallow take on the issues.
Once again, you're making assumptions here. It depends on a definition of "impressive." The Hill does have a record of experience, both as First Lady and in the Senate. It doesn't happen to jibe with your view of "impressive" or your view of "experience," as I noted above.
Here, let me just say that I do appreciate your pointing out that not everybody who hates Hillary Clinton is sexist. That was over the top on my part. However, the past couple days of reading blogs, news, posts that inject comments (like the "husband's coattails" and far worse) have given me that perspective. I want to believe that sexism and racism don't play roles in the attitudes, beliefs and views of supporters in both "camps," but it's been tough to find a lot of non-rabid commentary. I will say that anti-Obama posts I have read don't seem as vitriolic as those from anti-Hillary posters. But again, maybe that's just my perspective at this moment.
Finally, why the anonymous posting? I was dismayed to get to the end and see that. My personal view about this is that it, too, is pretty shallow...
-
Polls, Politics and the Media
[Read the article: Setting the South Carolina bar]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Polls give just a reflection of a mood/impulse at a certain moment in time and can change quickly for any number of reasons. Right now, for example, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of a national matchup of Democrats vs. Republicans shows Democrats beating every Republican by 10 percentage points with the exception of John McCain. In that case, Hillary has a 4 point edge and Obama is dead-even.
The other points I want to make are these:
If you do a little research into the "attacks" by Obama and Clinton on each other you'll see that they started months ago, not just in New Hampshire, and not just on the Clinton side.
Obama supporters need to end the notion that he is being unfairly picked-on by the Clintons. As media records show, Obama has participated equally vigorously in the "down-and-dirty" almost since he announced his candidacy.
It's also interesting to point out that Clinton's and Obama's voting records are nearly identical on the issues. The one exception is Barack Obama's statement against the war in Iraq while he was in the Illinois State Legislature.
Once elected to the Senate, Sen. Obama voted in favor of continued funding for the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan except once when he was marked as NV (Not Voting).
On the bankruptcy reform bill that received some attention at Monday's debate, information provided by Congressional Record and Project Vote Smart shows that Obama voted against an amendment to the bankruptcy bill that would have capped at 30 percent interest rates that credit card companies charge consumers. The amendment failed, but the bankruptcy bill passed and there is no cap on credit card interest rates.
SOURCE: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3480&can_id=9490
Also, Clinton is correct in that Obama has received money from organizations/corporations/companies, through their PACs and/or individual employees within these companies/ corporations/organizations. The Obama campaign has taken $59,661,650 from these PACs, including those listed here:
Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300
SOURCE: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?cycle=2008&id=N00009638
Hillary Clinton's campaign contributions from corporate/ company/organization PACs amount to $69,189,421, including those listed here:
DLA Piper $356,100
Goldman Sachs $350,050
Morgan Stanley $323,550
Citigroup Inc $307,350
EMILY's List $211,642
National Amusements Inc $193,850
JP Morgan Chase & Co $173,350
Kirkland & Ellis $172,000
Skadden, Arps et al $151,460
Greenberg Traurig LLP $150,900
Cablevision Systems $135,113
Merrill Lynch $125,550
Time Warner $124,150
Lehman Brothers $123,450
Bear Stearns $120,580
Patton Boggs $118,400
Ernst & Young $110,650
Blank Rome LLP $105,100
Latham & Watkins $100,950
News Corp $99,350
SOURCE: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
If y'all want to continue focusing on who-said-what-when-to-whom and who's the "nastiest", then knock yourselves out!
I, for one, am tired of the tirades, rants, raves, mud-slinging and name-calling that BOTH campaigns are engaging in. But that's politics, like it or not.
I urge you to take a look at the record and stop listening to what the media and the candidates want to hype.
-
Fall All Over Yourself
[Read the article: Barack Obama agrees with me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Geez, Joan. Did the letters/comments from yesterday's post send you running? I personally thought a majority of them were vitriolic ranting lunacies (except mine...).
Today you seem to be falling all over yourself about Barack Obama because he agreed with you. So what?! He also agrees that Republicans were the "party of ideas for 10 or 15 years, there..." and that Jesus is just alright with him because he's been "called" to be an honest-guy-who-wants-to-go-to-Washington-to-change-it.
Most of us have a word for that: pandering! George Bush and Ronald Reagan both had that tactic down.
Damn! What is it with this man? He must be some smooth talker. His voting record, his campaign financing are just as average (or superior, depending on your perspective) to Hillary Clinton's.
So..............
Snap out of it!