Letters to the Editor
SueNJ97
Published Letters: 161 Editor's Choice: 3
-
An honest answer
[Read the article: Leahy: Clinton should quit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Debaser - Yes, when they went anywhere close to the covention, and sometimes when they didn't. There's a reason Ted Kennedy hates the 'Southern' wing of the Democratic Party that has nothing to do with actual policy differences. He believes Jimmy Carter's 1980 primary fight with him ruined any chance he had for the presidency. His children had to beg him not to put the whole family through it again in 1984.
You may not remember 1992 - I do. It wasn't pretty between Clinton, Tsongas and Jerry Brown and I believe that if Tsongas hadn't had a recurrance of his cancer it would have gone on longer and been uglier.
Mondale vs. Hart, anyone? The 1968 Democratic fight for the nomination, anyone? Yes. The primary season is, well, just ugly. It is, and it's just that everyone wants to believe it will be sweetness and light this time. Bah.
-
@debaser
[Read the article: Leahy: Clinton should quit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People tend to forget what led up to the people who were nominated and concentrate only on the many Democratic candidates who have lost.
Anyway...on to the serious stuff...you'll get no argument from me on the state of the Habs vs. that of my Devs. Le sigh. It's not just that NJ can't seem to win a game. It's that they don't seem interested in winning. Last night, they were obviously playing to take the game into OT, not to try to win it in regulation, and it backfired on them when NY scored a fluke goal w/about 3 minutes left in the third. They lost. It was their own fault because they were playing not to lose, which, despite the team's rep as a defense-first machine, they don't usually do, they get a lead and prevent the other team from scoring - they play to win that way (sorry - everyone who doesn't care about this, for taking this completely off topic).
I would guess that if NJ even gets into the playoffs (they might run the table with losses) they get swept in the first round. I think the Habs have a good chance of going to the Finals if they can avoid the Rangers - you guys seem to have a problem scoring against Lundqvist, I suspect it's the fact that his pads take up the entire bottom part of the net.
And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.
-
@Uncle Fester
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My question is, is this that much different than what has been done to other spouses? Hillary was the evil bitch-queen/feminatzi/marxist/fascist (which, btw, is the way many Obama supporters see her now, except they don't think she's really a feminist) who dared to somehow think she could displace 'America's grandmother', Barbara Bush. Teresa Heinz Kerry was the spoiled, elitist, domineering biotch who deigned to grace us with her presence. Most Republicans acted like it was a major crisis for the country that she would breathe the same air that circulated around the sainted Laura Bush.
What is being done to Michelle Obama may be being done with slightly different rhetoric, but it is no new invention, and shouldn't be viewed as new. Or, did I imagine what went on with Hillary Clinton and Teresa Heinz Kerry? Or, is it just now objectionable to a new set of people because, well, it's being done to Michelle Obama? Really, I'm just confused. Do I have a frigging longer memory about these things than other people????
-
Uncle Fester - that's what I was sort of leading up to
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's par for the course, and, instead of acting like this was something special dreamed up for Michelle Obama, understand that it is par for the course. Democratic spouses will be attacked. Republican spouses will probably be forced to hide who they really are (Marilyn Quayle - smarter than hubby and a career woman - and Liddy Dole) or will just shut up, smile, wave and be painted as saints.
That's why, instead of focusing on how 'new and unfair' it all is, people should find a way to talk about what matters to them. But, I notice that even when the candidtes try it, the media complain that they are being falsely polite.
-
Alecsmom
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton on the economy: "We have a crisis of confidence"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I doubt anything would even make it to the table about ARMs for the ordinary American if it hadn't been tied into a Wall Street disaster. Oh, the Democratic candidates would have talked about it, sure, but there is no way anything at all would happen.
The fact that lack of regulation allowed Wall Street to literally screw the pooch, with the losses at most of the major banks, has changed things a bit. However, it looks like it really did require a bail-out for the clients of Bear Stearns (since that's what the $30B guarantee was for for JPM) and that the stock-holders of BS threw a tantrum that the $2 PPS wasn't enough and did get something of a bail-out at $10PS when the government said no way to begin with, for more robust proposals for something to be done for the ordinary citizen with ARMs. Plus, possible changes to the regulatory situation.
But, I still wouldn't bet on it. Americans have remarkably short memories and the economy may actually be starting to come out of the recession about 6 months into the next President's term. Many Americans may be starting to pick up their lives and will forget their neighbors' troubles unless, of course, the foreclosed houses are down the block, getting ratty looking and driving down their property values. I also wouldn't bet on any great changes in the regulatory climate, no matter who gets in. And, in the end, Wall Street will just invent new investment mechanisms to get around anything they come up with.