Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Words Have Hurt Obama Among Core Democrats
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People tend to "tell the truth" when our guard is down. This clearly applies to all of these candidates, for better or worse. If we are going to make anything of comments like Obama's "typical white person" it should probably be its effect on voters in upcoming primaries and caucuses.
All of us could shut off the 24/7 spin-zone about this election, but we won't. And we certainly won't shut off the Internet blogs and ezines pushing every coneivable tactic to bring down one candidate and raise up another.
Neither of these candidates is perfect; neither has a "lock" on the right answers, the right comments, the right policies, the right direction for the country, or the right voters. Both of them have engaged in stealth dirty tricks, nastiness, dishonesty, stretching their resumes and experience, and misleading, outright dishonest voter mailings and ads.
What is maddening is not that this is politics. It is that Obama's followers are zealous and hateful in painting Hillary Clinton as the devil incarnate in order to boost the image of their candidate and denying facts about their own candidate in the process. I frequently chalk this up to the probability that many Obama followers have not been around in politics very long (I'm not being "ageist" here; I'm saying that it seems as though many Obama folks are "new" to politics and elections).
What both of the candidates need to be concerned about at this point in time is where the votes are. Right now, in upcoming primaries and caucuses, they aren't in Obama's favor. And the gap is growing by the day. If Clinton faced this kind of problem with core Democratic voters, I think she would accept the handwriting on the wall. The fact is, she doesn't. And I think if Obama faced this problem with his core constituency --Blacks -- he would accept the handwriting on the wall, as well.
Whether Obama meant his words about his grandmother being a "typical white person" really doesn't matter at this point. The words are out there, for better or worse, and they are hurting him among core Democratic voters.
-
@ david sugarman: Really? Being Respectful Is Hard?
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]be that as it may, I WANT OBAMA PRESIDENT - that means learning to suck up to the Hillarites - so i'm practicing; it doesn't come naturally.
"Hillarites", "learning to suck up".
You know, sugarman, I think most of HRC's supporters have always only wanted one thing: respect for our views and opinions and treating us as intelligent human beings who have a different take on this election than Obama's followers. Is it really so hard to be respectful?
-
@ BryanS: And Tit-for-tat Isn't So Junior High?
[Read the article: Politico: "Clinton has virtually no chance of winning"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As far as I know, Joan has not previously used the term "Obamabots". Neither has she called Clinton supporters names, even supposedly "cute" ones.
I haven't used negative characterizations of Obama's followers. As I have posted many times, using these names and playing these ridiculous "rhymin' Simon" games is childish and shows contempt for people who don't share your views or support your candidate -- no matter how "amusing" you think these pranks are. It is also a way to "fit in" and be part of the popular, accepted group. It requires no serious critical thinking ability and shows that the only thing there is to offer up is childish tags, one-liners and zingers, and to "join the pack."
If I wanted this kind of crap as reasons to support claims I would go to the local junior high, because that is about the level of intelligence I see displayed here frequently when it comes to Barack Obama.
Offer up something of substance to support your candidate, or to argue against Hillary Clinton, other than such idiotic children's bullshit name-calling and alliterative assininities.
-
Voters Polled Don't Agree With Obama's 'Math'
[Read the article: Politico: "Clinton has virtually no chance of winning"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A poll conducted by CBS found that only 46 percent believe that superdelegates should support the candidate with the most delegates.
A majority of voters -- 51 percent -- believe that superdelegates should support the candidate who has the best chance of winning (30%), or that they should be free to support whichever candidate they prefer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/main250.shtml
-
@ trible: This IS NOT What She Said
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Infact teh only thing I hold against Hillary was her response to beign asked if he was not Muslim and se responded much like a petulant politico " Not as far as I know" That was a reprehensible response but one guaranteed to make people like my mother in law think Obama is hiding something that makes them apprehensive.
Even the liberal watchdog group Media Matters has stated emphatically that this is not what Clinton said. Yet, once again, here is another Obama follower repeating this as fact.
I'm sorry that you can't or won't correct this among other Obama followers, or with people you know and love who are allowed to believe Clinton somehow disputes that Obama is Christian.
Disagreeing with Clinton over policy or votes is one thing: to continue smearing her for a comment that has been lifted and is now used entirely out of the complete sentence, is just reprehensible.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803180003
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803140003
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803110005
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803090001
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803060012
http://mediamatters.org/items/200803060002