Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 10
-
is being framed the "black president" worse than being called "no change"?
[Read the article: Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe race makes things hypersensitive, but I have been appalled by Obama's campaign from the beginning; they deliberately have portrayed Hillary as an agent of "no change" from the Bush years.
I can't think of anything more insulting than to characterize a progressive like Hillary in accordance to the way Bush and the republicans have acted. Self-serving, sniveling, whiny, selfish, incompetent, cruel idiots that spent 8 years viscerally attacking the Clintons and then another 8 years dismantling our democracy and effectiveness as a world leader.
And yet Obama's campaign got away with conflating Hillary to that. Now most of Obama's supporters write very divisive things about Hillary, essentially perpetuating republican talking points about her because they fear that her divisiveness makes her un-electable.
This is the same self-defeating phenomenon you have pointed out with Dems and the FISA bill; that Dems who are worried about supporting a "divisive" character like Hillary will cave to the fear of her being divisive which ends up dividing our party.
How is Obama practicing a new kind of politics here? Our worse president ever and he somehow insinuates that support for Hillary is just a continuation of the same? What a smear job that is.
And yet when Obama is framed as the "black candidate", it's insulting even for Glenn, eh? Well, perhaps when you listen to Obama lapse into black church preacher cadence and use Christian "catch-phrases" sprinkled into his speeches and then 8 out of 10 black voters vote for you, then perhaps he is eerily like Jackson. So what? Was he trying to sound like a black preacher so he could connect with blacks on that level? Yes. But then you can't compare him to another black who ran for the presidential nomination? They both want to be president. Check. They both speak like they're church preachers. Check.
I fail to see the shame in what Clinton's have done, relative to the shame in what Obama has done. He has made us as fearful of Hillary as much as the republicans. He does like to use republican fears against us Democrats to serve his purpose. This is not a shining new kind of politics, these are old politics to a fault.
Glenn, you were a voice of reason for quite some time. Please don't default to the rest of the Chicken Little's in the media.
-
Savvy move
[Read the article: Clinton's primary night gambit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So the question has been posed, "Would Hillary really want to win the nomination this way at the convention?"
I would ask the same question of Obama, "Would Obama really want to win the nomination this way at the convention"? Would he like to take the republican position that Michigan and Florida's preference not count? And then get nominated? I think that is a worse position to be in than Hillary fighting for all state's preferences to be recognized, to be counted (and in Michigan and Florida's case, symbolically).
This is a savvy move by the Clinton campaign. If it does come down to superdelegates making the decision for the Democratic nomination, then Clinton can argue that she has two states that can represent a vote for her.
BTW, how does such flagrantly anti-Hillary posts get to be an "editor's choice"?
-
National campaign
[Read the article: Obama press secretary makes joke at Clinton camp expense]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the real difference that Clinton has stated from the beginning: she is running a national campaign.
Obama has won the two states he campaigned in the longest. One was next to his home state (Iowa) and the other has a heavy black population (South Carolina).
This might have worked if he did live in JFK's time and the news cycle was very slow. But Hillary's name recognition will trump any traction Obama makes with this accelerated schedule.
Whenever Obama loses, the delegate count matters, not the percentage vote. Whenever he wins, the percentage vote matters. Obama is a quick study and plays "old" politics pretty comfortably.
-
Hillary got 164,000 more votes than the republican primary winner,
[Read the article: Clinton, Obama campaigns fight over Florida's significance]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]McCain (693,425). And the delegates didn't even count. That is something.
-
Any Democrat will beat McCancient
[Read the article: Which Democrat can beat McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This poll is pure conjecture. About as viable to hang anyone's hat on as the polls a couple months ago with Guiliani doing well against Hillary and Obama.
And just in time for a new round of caucuses. It's incredible how much hand-wringing we still do about the 30% that hate Hillary. Why the fuck do we care what they think? Should that fear of the hatred drive OUR decision-making? Republicans don't think like that, and we shouldn't either.
Here are the facts:
1. McCain is an over 70, pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush policy candidate. This combo is equal to the sound of all the nails being driven into his coffin at once.
2. More than 150,000 more people have voted for Hillary than Obama, and that does not include Florida and Michigan.
3. More than twice the amount of people have come out to vote for Democrats than for republicans in the primary process.
4. Clinton will have a VP on the ticket that solidifies the platform.
5. As Clinton continues to campaign, her likability factor goes up as she is able to make up ground from the republicans vicious smears of her.
6. Worrying about McCain gives the republicans too much credit where none is due. They are demoralized and uninspired. Not even our major efforts to say 'no' to Bush won the White House for us. A 'no' vote for Hillary won't translate to shit.
Republicans didn't "hate" Hillary before she came along in 1992 just as they don't "hate" Obama now. A fresh face is the only excuse why they don't act like 10-year old bullies towards Obama right now, but they will. They always approach a Democrat with their knives sharpened and their canine teeth glistening.
This doesn't mean that Obama is "hope" and "change" and Hillary is not. All it means is that he doesn't have a past with them. But ask yourself, we know the Democrats can change, but do you really think the republicans can? Really?