Letters to the Editor
Taliesan
Published Letters: 942 Editor's Choice: 19
-
sesanders, Anon
[Read the article: How Obama won Wisconsin ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You mean pretty much the way Hillary Campaigners have played up Hillary being a female, and called females voting for the other candidate gender-traitors?
Or how about the collective disgust by Hillary supporters at Obama using the word "periodically." As grasping for straws goes, well, that one kind of beats the hell out of most things.
At the start of the campaing Obama was getting accused of not being black enough. Now he gets criticised for playing the race card. Gee, I wonder how convincing your argument really is.
Anon
Don't read more into his comments than he means, it only makes you look weak. He isn't being racist, just wrong.
-
SkylarDexter
[Read the article: How Obama won Wisconsin ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am not so much anti you guys calling people names and all of that - heck I do it too, though I have started as of yesterday trying to stop it.
What I am against is you guys calling Obama's supporters naive, weak-willed, intellectually elitist cultists, and then whining when Obama's supporters respond.
The victim play is played out for you guys. It has failed quite thoroughly, and to be honest I think it has backfired. It has driven support away from you.
-
SkylarDexter
[Read the article: How Obama won Wisconsin ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appologise, I misunderstood your intent.
-
SkylarDexter
[Read the article: How Obama won Wisconsin ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it depends on how and when it is decided in the end.
If it comes down to the party establishment overruling the party base, whichever one of them wins the Democrats will lose in November.
If it comes down to the "people's choice" they both stand a pretty good shot in the generals. After all, McCain's campaign slogan may as well be "More wars, less jobs."
The important thing is to put forward the idea that this election is clean, that this is the will of the Democrats, and, with such a high turnout, the American people as well - whichever candidate wins.
-
pricilla
[Read the article: How Obama won Wisconsin ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, here is the problem: Have you tried asking the state for the said information?
While Obama might not have kept copies of his years in the Illinois Senate, the state probably did.
If the records don't exist, well that kind of means that the New York Times, which claimed to examine his Illinois Senate records, lied.
After all, you can't examine what doesn't exist. And note, this is not a link to a pro-Obama article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1203498108-/oeebo6ACD2uvgpCSX8S6g
-
Ana
[Read the article: How Obama won Wisconsin ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I shall not answer your charge on Obama supporters being horrible people, because I have read enough of your own posts to know how hollow that charge rings coming from you.
Thus I will answer your real point.
I value the experience only so far as it demonstrates the ability to make wise choices. Insulting foreign leaders, who you will need on your side if you are to fix America, dispells, to my view, a lot of the mystique of someone having experience.
As does voting for a disasterous war in Iraq.
Obama, might not have the experience that Hillary has, but his experience includes a surprising degree of maturity. For example, when he spoke on immigration and inner city unemployment, I hear a person refusing to take the popular scapegoat.
And his speech against the war in Iraq, made when America's bloodlust was up, has proven to be right on the money.
Now obviously we see the candidates differently, we are both operating off of our own perspectives and our own collection of biases. That is okay because we are adults, and we do not depend on strangers on the internet to validate our views.
We shall see over the next few years, which of us is right and which of us is wrong.
-
Here is the short and sweet on both plans.
[Read the article: The quest for universal healthcare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Government is going to subsidise the insurance industry in the hopes that it will get embarrassed by the huge, record breaking profits it is making and drop its fees.
Hillary's has the additional "benefit" of forcing everyone in America to have insurance. How she plans to enforce this, she hasn't said, which leaves me with a distinct sense of this being one promise she banks on breaking.
Frankly, neither plan should pass. They are both stupid.
-
AlecsMom
[Read the article: The quest for universal healthcare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
Sweden's very expensive healthcare as you call it, spends less than half of what America spends per capita.
Which means that single payer ends up being much, much cheaper than private industry taking care of it - plus you end up with more of the population covered.
When Republicans talk about the costs what they are really afraid of is paying $1 a month extra in taxes, for something they can get for $2 month from private industry. (Note: does not refer to the actual figures but to the Conservative mentality.)