Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 10
-
More on being intellectually dishonest
[Read the article: Obama camp targets Clinton experience claims]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. Discounting the need for experience while discrediting someone elses.
2. Calling a presidential candidate "a monster" is "less" than what Ferraro said?
3. Touting the Sinbad/Sheryl Crow tour as the executive summary for experience.
4. Touting writing books on his own as experience. So, should Stephen King be president?
5. Conflating his speech against an Iraq invasion as "the right judgement". Excuse me, but NO Democratic president would have taken that path back in 2002. NONE. Every single Democrat would have exercised the right judgement on this decision to go to war and to use, or not use, diplomacy.
6. Obama has explicitly taken part in character assassination from the get go. He took republican talking points (that Clinton is "divisive") and made that a cornerstone talking point as the underdog that helped knock her off.
Clinton is not claiming the moral high ground, Obama is. So this is directly from the horse's mouth. Now imagine if Clinton was saying this about Obama, how far would his supporters panties be in a wad? Tell me how this brings people together by talking this way?
- Obama says Hillary gives 'vague, calculated answers' does not have 'clear, consistent principles.' (11/03/07 NYT)
-Obama says Hillary is 'disingenuous'(11/03/07 Newsweek)
-Obama said Hillary is 'afraid of losing a propaganda battle to some small-time dictator.' (10/26/07 Obama Rally)
-Obama campaign said Hillary's campaign is 'desperate and negative.' (12/03/07 The Hill)
-Obama attacks Clintons, says 'problems were there long before George Bush ever took office.' (12/27/07 Chicago Sun-Times)
-'Barack Obama's right hand man thinks [Hillary] may have had something to do' with Bhutto's assasination. (12/27/07 Cnn.com)
-Obama's campaign says Bhutto's assasination was 'yet another manifestation' of Hillary's poor judgment.(12/28/07 Politico)
-Obama supporter doubts Hillary’s sincerity and says ‘those tears have to be analyzed.’ (1/10/08 NY Daily)
-Obama suggests Hillary was not truthful and was 'willing to say anything to get elected.' (1/18/08 Telegraph.co.uk)
-Obama campaign says Hillary's campaign ‘clearly would like to have workers' voices silenced' (1/18/07 salon.com)
-Obama tells Hillary, 'Truthfulness during campaigns makes a difference.' (1/21/08 cnn.com debate)
And this is before he officially "got negative"! But Obama has played with coded sexist language liberally: the woman cannot be trusted, the woman will divide us, the woman is not sincere, the woman is manipulating us with her tears. This has been the basis of sexism since Christianity made up the story that Eve got Adam kicked out of the garden of eden.
-
Are you kidding me?
[Read the article: Daily Kos writers' "strike" gets ugly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm at a lost for words. The irony and Orwellian aspects of this statement is overwhelming.
The mere support of Clinton is portrayed with derisiveness and contempt by Obama supporters. As if we all weren't railing against the same flagrant abusives by Bush and the republicans together, and now Clinton has been conflated to this level by people like Kos, Olbermann and his supporters.
And fyi, in this post, I am generalizing my portrayal of Obama supporters. This generalization is based on the thousands of posts I've read from Obama supporters on dozens of sites and my key impressions of them as a whole. However I realize that this is not true of all.
The ideology of this movement is no better than the right wing, and the language and hyperbole that is used by these hypersensitive Obama supporters undermines their ability to think rationally.
Hillary never claimed the moral high ground, and yet Obama's campaign has been just as sexist as she has been racist (coded language). His surrogates have been horrible, just like hers at a certain point. His words have been divisive and negative (how else did he knock her off as frontrunner? He constantly questioned her principles and ethics) as hers has been. And yet there are different rules for him.
The divisiveness has come from the projections of ideological insecurities from Obama supporters. "She's" not saying the right words that hit us in the gut, therefore she is Bush-lite. Leaping logic and jumping to conclusions is the type of emotional knee-jerk reactions that got the right-wing into trouble. And now that slippery slope has begun for us.
Obama started off in 2007 saying that she was too "divisive" and that she generally "lacked the principles" to build consensus like he did. His supporters are now seeing what they want to see and draw that conclusion in whatever happens.
How is this a campaign of hope? How is this a campaign of building people together? The people that are most drawn to his "hopeful" message are also the most judgmental and sensitive supporters. See the irony?
Obama supporters think Obama is better, more ethical, and just so great. And anyone else is just not acceptable and is just "attacking" Obama. But he doesn't attack, nope. It's delusional thinking. And everybody needs to calm down.