Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Obama is clearly for change as he has been demonstrating during the primary...
[Read the article: Obama campaign: Clinton should renounce remarks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]*crickets*crickets*
Oh, or not so clearly it seems. He is supposed to bring people together, right? That's what he claims. But I've only seen him conflate anything Bill and Hillary say as racist and create the new game of "critiquing Obama is morally wrong".
Look at the supporters he's gathered. Inspired on one hand, snarky as hell and extremely judgmental about his biggest rival: Hillary, on the other.
Sure, I'm supposed to believe that Obama is able to change the tone; he makes it seem so easy with the way the primary has gone so far. And with you passionate Obama supporters trailing behind and busily building that broad consensus, why I just fill up with warm fuzzies knowing that you hate Hillary more than republicans at this point. That's change.
Obama compares himself to the American icons MLK Jr. and JFK. For someone who hasn't done the hard work that they have, it clearly shows that he doesn't execute what he preaches very well. Do we have Alpha Male syndrome here, again?
I'm still searching for that "change" and "broad consensus" that must have occurred in the Senate after he joined in '05. It must be self-evident, right? I'm just puzzled how the Republicans managed to stand by Bush's extremely unpopular policies and obstruct the congress, considering 'The Obama' was staring at them in the face and inspiring them to reach across the aisle to sensible progressive policies. I'm also puzzled by the diving approval numbers of Congress, since Obama is there and must have produced all that positive change.
I'm also puzzled at how he can make an anti-war speech, then once in congress fall in line resulting in the same war funding record as *gasp* Hillary.
One thing I am sure of; this post will not be an Editor's Choice, because it's not a positive spin on Obama. Sorry, Tim...I'll try harder next time to change and build a better consensus with reality and rhetoric! Because I really want that digital red star!
-
Obama clearly, can change the tone of Washington...
[Read the article: The Clinton-Obama contest gets rougher]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]*crickets*crickets*
Oh, or not so clearly it seems. He is supposed to bring people together, right? That's what he claims. But I've only seen him conflate anything Bill and Hillary say as racist and create the new game of "critiquing Obama is morally wrong".
Look at the supporters he's gathered. Inspired on one hand, hyper-sensitive, snarky as hell and extremely judgmental about his biggest rival: Hillary, on the other.
Sure, I'm supposed to believe that Obama is able to change the tone; he makes it seem so easy with the way the primary has gone so far. And with you passionate Obama supporters trailing behind and busily building that broad consensus, why I just fill up with warm fuzzies knowing and seeing how you hate Hillary more than republicans at this point.
Obama compares himself to the American icons MLK Jr. and JFK. For someone who hasn't done the hard work that they have, it clearly shows that he doesn't execute what he preaches very well. Do we have Alpha Male syndrome here, again?
I'm still searching for that "change" and "broad consensus" that must have occurred in the Senate after he joined in '05. It must be self-evident, right? I'm just puzzled how the Republicans managed to stand by Bush's extremely unpopular policies and obstruct the congress, considering 'The Obama' was staring at them in the face and inspiring them to reach across the aisle to sensible progressive policies. I'm also puzzled by the diving approval numbers of Congress, since Obama is there and must have produced all that positive change.
His campaign co-chair (not toastmaster) said this about Hillary right after the NH primary:
"Those tears also have to be analyzed," Jackson said. "They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45 percent of African-Americans will participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."
Jackson continued: "We saw something very clever in the last week of this campaign ... We saw a sensitivity factor, something that Mrs. Clinton has not been able to do with voters that she tried in New Hampshire. Not in response to voters. Not in response to Katrina, not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people -- the war in Iraq -- we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears, but not Hurricane Katrina."
I find this incredibly more offensive than anything Hillary or Bill has said to date, but have not seen Obama taken to task by the media, or the justified firing of Jesse Jackson Jr.
It's clear to me he seems perfectly comfortable in the politics of the status quo and completely incapable of real change.