Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ Bernbart: "Just Words"
[Read the article: Clinton camp goes on offense against Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton's latest tactic is to blame Obama for the revote not happening n MI and Fl is so ridicuous. It is the state legislatures that make those decisions. Even her campaigning in MI on behalf of a revote did not convince the Democrats in the MI legislature. Hillary did not play by the rules and won't agree to compromise. She wants it her way or no way.
Look, I know how much the posters here at Salon despise Hillary Clinton and her supporters. I/we get that. But in the interest of "facts" I wish that Obama's followers would actually do your homework and connect the dots. Obama has done and said some pretty non-transparent s*** with regards to Michigan and Florida. So, what's up with the misinformation and lies about his position(s) on Florida and Michigan, BB?
“The Democratic National Committee said it would accept a proposal for a new round of balloting in Michigan, but the bill has been bottled up in part because Obama's campaign has raised objections to it.” … .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/19/AR2008031903258.html?wpisrc=newsletter
"Obama Vows to do 'What's Right'"
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking
And according to Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow (MI), New Hampshire "cheated" by moving up its primary. In order to do this, they were granted special permission by Howard Dean and the DNC. Yet, when Michigan also requested such permission, they were denied:
..."Michigan Democratic leaders repeatedly asked the Democratic National Committee if it intended to penalize New Hampshire for this violation, but the committee refused to act."
"Rather than allow this broken system to persist, we challenged it by deciding to apportion our delegates according to the results of a primary scheduled by the Michigan Legislature for Jan. 15."
"The Democratic National Committee proceeded to selectively enforce its calendar rule. It gave New Hampshire a waiver to move from third to second place in the sequence. But Michigan and Florida, which had also moved up the date of its primary, were denied waivers. When Howard Dean, the party chairman, says that states should not be allowed to violate the rules, he ignores the fact that when the committee itself decided not to follow the rules and granted a waiver to New Hampshire, it set the stage for the present impasse." ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19levin.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=Michigan+vote&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Does Obama really believe in more honest, transparent government? Or are they "just words"?
-
@ Uncle Fester: Politics
[Read the article: Clinton camp goes on offense against Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the one hand, you guys want to tell me Hillary is the battle tested hardnosed experienced realpolitik candidate. On the other hand, she is poor victim Hillary, whose hands are lillywhite, pristine and untainted by politics, a victim, her campaign doomed by unfair sexism, racism, and ageism instead of strategic blunders and staff losers like Mark Penn.
I have a question: why is it necessary to continue the "double standards" you just derided me for? Every time you say something like this (above) re: "...poor victim Hillary...a victim" you fall into the same drop-door that you seemingly want to avoid. I have posted here and elsewhere specifics about why I believe the media has been unfair toward Hillary Clinton in this campaign. I have provided some analysis, links, specific tactics and language about sexism. I have never said she was a "victim". That does seem to be the WOD among Obama followers, however. So how about this: Can we have a truce on this word and characterization of Clinton? You seem to be a reasonable sort.
I happen to think she is the former: hard-nosed, experienced Hillary. Both campaigns are campaigning and belly-bumping. Anybody who pretends otherwise is foolish.
Right-o! And my posts here and elsewhere are designed to show that side of Barack Obama, as well.
-
@ Fester: NH and Other Matters
[Read the article: Clinton camp goes on offense against Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't see how NH going first has anything to do with Obama. NH going first is a tradition that has gone on far longer than this campaign cycle. The dustup with FL & MI started way before Obama was on anybody's radar. Way before his win in IA. I really don't get your implication here at all. Please explain.
Did you read Levin's article? If so, then you understand what the significance of "going first" has to do with Florida and Michigan and Obama. Changes were made in the number of states that could participate in January primaries, including New Hampshire. New Hampshire moved up its primary date because Iowa moved up its caucus date. New Hampshire "broke the rules" but the DNC decided to selectively enforce its own rules by giving a waiver to New Hampshire, but refusing to do so to Michigan and Florida. Florida is important here because the process was controlled by Republicans.
RE: "...way before Obama was on anybody's radar..." What are you referring to? If it is his interview with reporters in Florida, after attending a campaign fundraiser there for his presidential campaign, after the DNC had announced and published the rules re: Florida and Michigan, then how can it be "...way before [he] was on anybody's radar..."?
My point is that he knew precisely what he was doing in Florida when he said what he did about seating Florida's delegates. To say now with a straight face that he has no interest in "disenfranchising" voters in Florida OR Michigan is ludicrous and disingenuous.
-
@ Uncle Fester: Arguing For A Candidate
[Read the article: Clinton camp goes on offense against Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm arguing for Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama. And, by the way, I hate double standards. I haven't been at all happy with Clinton/Penn flip-flops on several issues, either. But it IS politics.
The thing that bugs me the most about Obama's followers is that many of them cannot or will not admit or see the glaring inconsistencies between his "words" and his actions. Accusing Hillary Clinton of being the devil incarnate in order to boost Obama's image or status is just childish. It is also one of the things that hardens Clinton supporters.