Letters to the Editor
BernieO
Published Letters: 32 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Edwards attackjs on Hillary
[Read the article: The debate through the eyes of Clinton loyalists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have always loved John Edwards, but I was deeply distressed by the tone of his attacks on Hillary. He was implying that she and Bill were nothing but Washington insiders who have gotten nothing done. Her response, pointing out some specific things she has accomplished and the fact that Bill balanced the budget was right on target.
This talk about change for change sake is juvenile. Many of the changes that people want to see are things that take years to accomplish - health care, equal rights, quality education. These are the very things that the Clintons have fought for all of their adult lives. There is nothing status quo about that. It is fine to disagree with the solutions they propose, but it is hugely dishonest to say they have not tried to change things for the better. Attacking the most successful Democratic president in recent years is a stupid strategy. You will never hear Republicans trashing Reagan.
In addition, like Joan, I want to know how Edwards would get things done without working with the special interests. And as for those of you who think Obama is above dealing with them, when he was a state legislator he worked with insurance companies to get a health care bill modified in response to their concerns. It shows he is a realist, but also a hypocrite. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/09/23/in_illinois_obama_dealt_with_lobbyists/)
-
Did I fall down the rabbit hole?
[Read the article: A Democratic donnybrook]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't believe no one is talking about the clip Gibson showed which put an exaggerated negative spin on the problems facing Social Security. After getting those Republican talking points out, Gibson never gave the candidates to discuss ths issue or refute his numbers.
As for Gibson's statement that experts supposedly believe we face a serious risk of a nuclear attack on an American city in the near future, I find it extremely bizarre that no one is talking about this statement, either. Was he accurate? If so, that should be about the only thing candidates discuss during the election.
-
The media hated Gore, too
[Read the article: How bashing Hillary backfired]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wasn't just the Clintons that were treated this way by our "liberal media". They savaged Gore and swooned over Bush. The media willingly repeated lies about Al, like the bogus "inventing the internet" garbage while giving Bush a pass on things like his bankruptcies, insider trading, etc. Many Democrats who now love Gore bought into these smears and voted for Nader.
Anyone who thinks that by nominating Obama this kind of trash politics will end must be brain dead. The Swift Boat crowd is alive and well and our media will surely give them a platform this time around, too. It's time we all wised up to this fact and start fighting back whenever any of our candidates is smeared in this fashion. That is the only way it will end.
-
Try this quote on for size
[Read the article: She said, he said]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
OK, so Obama did not specifically say that the Reagan had good ideas, but this clealy implies it. Dynamism and entrpreneurship? If he really thought Reagan's ideas were bad, why would he not have said it? Reagan's policies were disastrous and in direct opposition to what the Democratic Party stands for. To bring these policies up in a positive context and not say that you think they were wrong, that they did great damage to our country is bizarre. Obama deserved to be severely criticized for his statements. The deification of Reagan and his policies by the right wing spin machine should not be aided by any Democrat, explicitly or implicitly.
-
The media is playing the race card
[Read the article: Will whites vote for Barack Obama? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is time that the media knock this garbage off. It is irresponsible and divisive. I have no doubt that there are some people that will not vote for a black person, just as there are some who would never vote for a woman, Mormon, etc. but there is no evidence that this is a big factor in the race. By constantly viewing Obama through this lens, the media is playing the race card. It is particularly odd given that the one white guy in the contest is behind the woman and the black guy. The idea that someone would feel compelled to lie to pollsters because they are voting for a woman instead of a black man seems ridiculous. Why would that seem to be politically incorrect. It's not like they are choosing a David Duke type.
I am afraid that if Obama loses it will be seen by the media as evidence that white people won't vote for a black person which will be terrible for our country. I know a lot of people who are changing their minds about voting for Obama as they learn more about his experience and his policies. Most of them want him to run again when he is more seasoned. They believe, as I do, that he has the potential to be a great president, but not if he is elected now.
If the media keeps focusing on race and Obama loses, I think a lot of African Americans will see it as racist and that will set us back years.
Stop mind reading and stick to facts.