Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Grieve is a Clinton Drama Queen
[Read the article: Bob Johnson's "free ride"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the third, #3, post on this matter by Hillary's "surrogate", Johnson. You are going Chris Matthews on us and I seriously question your journalistic integrity at this point. You do exactly what the MSM does: ignore Edwards, dramatize everything Hillary does and gloss over any criticism of Obama.
Obama's surrogate, who is his co-chairman, not just some toastmaster, said something far, far worse and misogynistic about Hillary after the NH Primaries, yet you only put one, 1, post about it.
He said:
"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."
Time to get a female writer in 'The War Room'. Tim Grieve is Obama's surrogate, now we need one for Hillary and Edwards.
-
Isn't it ironic, donchya think?
[Read the article: The race vs. gender war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And this is real irony, not Alanis Morrisette irony.
I am just incredulous how a candidate who is promising "change", a "new kind of politics" and a "broad consensus" has played out the campaign in the way Obama has.
It either points to incompetence or talking out of both sides of his mouth.
He has kicked at another minority and tried to have it both ways by crying "foul!" anytime he is criticized. Even things he brought up (his drug use) is off limits. Him and his surrogates conflate anything Bill and Hillary say as racist, which is so far from reality; they've been fighting for civil rights since the 60's.
Based on this performance, then it clear that he can change the tone of Washington. Because if he can rise above a primary like he has, then he can rise above a general....
*crickets*crickets*
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.
Look, I just listened to the book on CD 'Don't Know Much About History' and candidate smearing is as American as apple pie. It goes back to Hamilton and Jefferson. My hope is that we can stomp down this dangerous authoritarian streak the republican party has exposed and reverse the damage, and progress beyond it.
But I see the way Hillary has been treated, and pedestal Obama has been put on because his rhetoric is Lakoff-like. But Obama has been the biggest disappointment of them all. Not only is his rhetoric using us to get votes, but I am very sure that he can't really pull it off! It's a system that he cannot break and he has shown he's not truly willing to break it.
-
Waiting for Obama
[Read the article: Having it both ways]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to fire Jesse Jackson Jr. too, but no post in War Room about him having it both ways.
Tim Grieve = Obama Surrogate
He is part of the problem.
-
There was a campaign to vote 'Uncommitted' in Michigan
[Read the article: And 61 percent voted against Romney]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Grieve, you should investigate this campaign. It would be right up your alley.
Who funded the campaign? Who was working the phones? Who was behind the flyer distribution?
Hillary didn't campaign in Michigan, but someone funded a campaign to vote 'Uncommitted'. Who did that? I would garner a guess: Obama surrogates, or the Obama campaign.
-
Electability argument in a vacuum
[Read the article: Did Obama win the Nevada delegate count?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The electability argument is made repetitively in the context of one nominee against one nominee in the general election.
The fact is that there will be a VP candidate on the ticket which changes the electability factor tremendously. For people to forget this fact over and over just drives me batty because it is faulty analysis.
If its Hillary as the nominee, I bet it she will pick either Wesley Clark or Obama as VP.
Either way, the VP is usually picked up to offset any perceived weakness with the presidential nominee. This will be the case for Hillary, and the case for Obama.