Letters to the Editor
little lord baltimore
Published Letters: 191 Editor's Choice: 9
-
The pro-Obama media bias?
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I know that the Hillary and her supporters stridently believe that her coverage in the media has been grossly biased, and that this same media coverage will be largely to blame when she does not win the nomination.
I'm sorry just don't see it.
Yes, I understand that the media is sexist. What I don't understand is why this has not been as big an issue for any other female politician who has held office? Why didn't Hillary's campaign understand that we live in a sexist society, where it is appropriate for the press to talk about a woman's hair, her style of dress and the height of her heels while claiming to be doing serious reporting? Why was her strategy to highlight and bemoan the unfairness of this inequity and sexism while at the same time claiming to be battle-ready and time-tested?
Why keep bringing up the media bias when the media has not: made a bigger issue of her not releasing her tax returns? made a bigger issue of her not de-classifying relevant papers from Clinton's presidency? If they are so biased, why has the media not made a bigger deal out of the fact that while she was First Lady her attempts at health care reform were so unpopular with both the Republicans and Democrats, that many see her stubbornness and political mistakes as a large part of the reason that the Republicans were able to win back the house in '94? Why hasn't there been a sharper critique of her "35 years of experience" claim, while Obama who by the same calculus could claim over 20 years of experience, is always reminded that he has only been in the Senate for 3 years? Why aren't more media analysts discussing how the Clinton White House was notorious for its secrecy, it's disdain for the press, its habit of giving choice positions and promotions to unqualified and untested loyalists, its disregard for policy and even laws that it found inconvenient, and how the Republicans learned lessons from the Clintons and took them to their disastrous conclusions? Why is Hillary allowed to take credit, as she did this morning, for helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland, but the media is savaged if they try to assign her any of the blame for Bill's failures? Why haven't more media analysts brought up the point that maybe, when so much is at stake for the nation, it's not a good idea for the Democratic party to nominate someone who Republicans, many Independents and, yes, many Democrats hate with an irrational and consuming passion? Why are the media going along blindly the notion that we should wait and see what happens in March, and now in PA in April; why have they bought into the "insult 40 states" strategy as politically sound and viable?
I feel very strongly that any other candidate with her history, with her track record, with her disastrous campaign strategies, with her crushing defeats in now 11 straight primaries and caucuses, and with her default position of claiming to be the victim of sexism and of media-hate, would have been laughed out of the public arena by now.
-
Feeling safer already
[Read the article: Obama hits back at Clinton ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Someone on another website commented that it's impossible to know what kind of president a candidate will be until or unless they're already in the office. Instead we have to base our opinions on how they run their campaigns and how they react to criticisms and political attacks. Watching Obama gain mastery of debating, watching how his campaign has effectively diffused almost every attack from Clinton and now McCain, and watching how he has so confounded Hillary's strategists that I can only imagine how frustrated and angry they are at this ad, makes me feel better and better about my decision to vote for him.
-
@ FDuquette and nabalzbbfr
[Read the article: The McCain/Hagee story picks up steam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here are some of Hagee's writings about the Catholic Church.
"Adolf Hitler attended a Catholic school as a child and heard all the fiery anti-Semitic rantings from Chrysostom to Martin Luther. When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him. Pope Pius XII, called by historians 'Hitler's Pope,' joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background for the bloodthirsty cry, 'Pereat Judea'.... In all of his [Hitler's] years of absolute brutality, he was never denounced or even scolded by Pope Pius XII or any Catholic leader in the world.
"The Roman Catholic Church, which was supposed to carry the light of the gospel, plunged the world into the Dark Ages.... The Crusaders were a motley mob of thieves, rapists, robbers, and murderers whose sins had been forgiven by the pope in advance of the Crusade.... The brutal truth is that the Crusades were military campaigns of the Roman Catholic church to gain control of Jerusalem from the Muslims and to punish the Jews as the alleged Christ killers on the road to and from Jerusalem."
I am not a Catholic or an Evangelical, but I do believe that if Obama has to explicitly denounce and reject Farrakhan then McCain should be asked to explain why he embraces Hagee's support in light of Hagee's controversial views.