Letters to the Editor
Ricardo Malocchio
Published Letters: 182 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Depends on your definition of "pledge"...
[Read the article: Obama declines debate invite, so Clinton will go it alone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For all you regular folk hopelessly wedded to outdated notions of honesty, ethics, and forthrightness, "pledge" means "a solemn binding promise to do, give, or refrain from doing something".*
(*Regular folk definition does not apply to the Clintons.)
-
cythera45, since you're dying for a little attention...
[Read the article: Obama declines debate invite, so Clinton will go it alone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...could you please explain to us why your (new) candidate has now reneged on yet another promise? A promise she made to other Democrats? To you and me? To anyone who wants to believe that a candidate, particularly a Democratic one, can be taken at her word?
By all means, Senator Clinton, enjoy your little forum on Fox News. It is exactly where you belong. They're rooting for you. You are their last hope. So, fire up the base, the Republican base, and send all the independent voters flocking to McCain.
And this is how the election will be lost.
-
Why does this wretched screaming match feel like the 90s redux?
[Read the article: Obama declines debate invite, so Clinton will go it alone]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, the parts we'd rather forget? The name-calling. The reductiveness. The lies and rationalizations of lies. The shitbag Republican congress led by haters and hypocrites. And, sigh, the Clintons.
-
Where was Sen. Clinton when the FISA vote(s) came up yesterday...
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...offering solutions?
And we're to believe that one of the top-ten "earmarking" Senators will be taking on the special interests? Um, har? Har-de-har?
As an elected official, she's bent over backward to support the right-wing's agenda (Iraq, Iran, against reforming sentencing laws, doesn't even show for the votes on telecom immunity). She may as well be Joe Lieberman. If she is the nominee, the Republicans will essentially be given a pass for the past eight years, the hard-right base will be energized and ready to vote against her (if not for McCain), and the Senator's brief, sad record will destroy her.
This is becoming a litmus test for Democrats. As the Senator's campaign continues to descend into self-parody, we should ask ourselves: are we really serious when we say we want to win the White House?
-
vmcla1, do actions include...
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...casting votes?
If not, which "actions" are you referring to?
And, since Hillary won't explain, can you explain her voting record on Iraq? On Iran? On (opposing) sentencing reform? Or failing entirely to vote on telecom immunity.
Just a bit perplexed about these wonderful "actions" you speak of.
-
cytheria45...
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...as they say in Hillaryland, you go girl!
Honestly, I can't tell whether you're a hardcore Clinton supporter as you present yourself, or rather some pissed-off loose cannon, perhaps upset about Edwards' failed run, and so have now transformed yourself into a parody of a Clinton supporter, evincing all those traits that you know will drive voters away from her.
I've decided it doesn't matter. Your a boon to Obama either way.
-
akasmith, please let me respond to your questions...
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Q: Do your comments ever include actually addressing the article at hand?
I honestly think so. First, the headline is "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions". I brought up the fact that she missed the FISA votes yesterday to point out that while she was giving speeches, Obama was doing his job and casting his votes against telecom immunity. I suspect he also gave speeches yesterday, and perhaps you might agree that in those speeches he does offer solutions just as Hillary does in her speeches. Perhaps his speeches, position papers, and record give you no reason to believe he's offering solutions. I disagree.
Q: Do you have anything at all to say about the substance of what Senator Clinton is saying in her speech which is quoted here by Koppelman?
Yes, I brought up the fact that Senator Clinton is among the top-ten "earmarking" Senators because it puts the lie to her claim of "taking on the special interests". You understand that earmarks are used to add unrelated expenditures to a larger piece of legislation in order to benefit... special interests. So, yes, I do believe I've responded to the substance of her speech.
And, beyond that, she's certainly saying that Obama is all talk, no action. And so I'm wondering what actions of hers she's speaking of? The Iraq authorization vote? The Iranian army "terrorist" designation? Her opposition to reforming crack cocaine sentencing laws? Her failure to even show up for the FISA votes because she was out on the campaign trail... giving speeches. I could list others, but these are the ones that I'd delineated above which I think do respond to the substance of the article.
You seem like a sensible type, and I don't mind responding to your criticism (though, respectfully, I think it's unfounded). And I look forward to your response.