Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 10
-
@ Stewsburntmonkey
[Read the article: Daily Kos writers' "strike" gets ugly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I love how the line of questioning came from the guy who posted this:
I don't follow Markos Moulitsas, but have seen him run himself into the ground before, but his post quoted here is pretty spot on. Fair does not mean balanced (as liberals have tried telling Fox news for years); sometimes the facts are biased. In this case Clinton really has no defense for her campaign and the fact that she and some of her more vocal supporters are trying to blame everyone and anyone for their failure is just another example of the problem with her candidacy.
* I would fully support any Clinton supporter here who wants to join in the boycott.
And the deconstructionist method on my post. That is so Xrandadu Hutman. You should get your own style.
I wrote: The mere support of Clinton is portrayed with derisiveness and contempt by Obama supporters.
You said:I don't think anyone is really saying that.
Actually, that is what one of the key complaints is about by the people boycotting DailyKos. You should read Alegre's letter again. Alegre isn't being arrogant or abusive. Mere posts like, "go Hillary!" are met with digital boos and food thrown at them.
We're not. Right now the race is for the Democratic nomination,...With each side trying to highlight the personality flaws of the other, the result is that both candidates get weaker and weaker. The fact that this continues at this level is what is angering many Democrats.
The pure contempt and judgemental language coming from Markos is because he's angry at the result of a competitive campaign? No, that conclusion is totally off the mark. Rachel Maddow is a good example of someone fearing the weakening of Dems against McCain. Markos is not. He is just angry at Clinton.
I'm not really sure what hyperbole you are talking about.
If you are not able to determine the key problems Alegre has with Markos, then I'm not surprised you haven't seen the hyperbole either. But it was pointed out in Olbermann's special comment when he tied in apartheid of South Africa to Hillary's campaign and I have heard Rhandi Rhodes give Obama's surrogate "a pass" on calling Hillary a monster because Bill Clinton accepted Saudi $$ for his foundation!!! She IS a monster! *gasp*
Hillary never claimed the moral high ground
That is a big part of the problem.
Actually, HRC is a real person and she is not going to pretend politicians don't make hard choices. What is disengenious is pretending to be from the moral high ground and then floundering to execute on it in almost every level as Obama has done. Your ideology is getting ahead of reality.
yet Obama's campaign has been just as sexist as she has been racist (coded language).
Examples?
- 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)
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 tears. This has been the basis of sexism since Eve got Adam kicked out of the garden of eden.
This is exactly what the problem is, people thinking you can only win by tearing down your opponents. Obama has gotten to where he is by inspiring people and building himself up, not by tearing down all those who oppose him.
If you still believe that after reading the above, then I can't help you. I'm going to move past the little peanut gallery parsing you inserted and jump to the last questions.
That's blatantly disingenuous. People say she's Bush-lite because of what she does say, not what she doesn't.
Is this revisionist history moment? She has said all the buzz words: leave Iraq, clean enviroment, clean energy, woman's rights, fight for the middle class, restore America's prestige. But what she DOESN'T say are these gut level rhetoric that brings people to the Obama camp. As Lakoff said, Obama is his best student out there. It's about the rhetoric, not the policies.
Obama started off in 2007 saying that she was too "divisive" and that she generally "lacked the principles" to build consensus like he did.
Both of which are borne out by the facts.
Right, the facts are that Hillary lacks principles. That's a fact, right? It always amazes me how an Obama supporter can push forward right-wing talking points. These people who have smeared and lied about Hillary to suit their own small, insecure psychological needs and who have totally fucked over the country are somehow right about Hillary. That's an incredible leap of logic.
It's a convenient truth for the Obama campaign to get people to run to him. Your initial snarky post about Hillary doesn't even touch the message Obama preaches. And yet there are so many like you who have attacked an incredible, intelligent, hard-working, progressive woman in such a harsh manner. That's the irony you do not see. Unfortunately, when you lose the ability to see the irony, you become ideological and the critical thinking stops.