Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 950 Editor's Choice: 102
Clinton can ditch all of her "principles" regarding choice, civil liberties, the environment and government for regular people, by endorsing John McCain over Obama. Meanwhile Obama wonders what interests allowed the Clintons to lend the campaign $5 million and he's some kind of freak. Obama is under attack not just by Clinton, but everywhere.
Clinton has run a relentlessly negative and hypocritical campaign for months against Obama and he asks one question and the storyline is either "both sides slugging it out" or "Obama not all he seemed." No wonder people who don't like Clinton are getting so mad on this and other sites.
While I was never excited by Obama, I am surprised at how he has managed to run a relatively positive campaign -- by any standards in the modern era. And all it's seemed to have got him is the inability, according to the media, to ask any questions of Clinton, even warranted ones (there's no distinction between good questions and smears in the US media -- it's all "negative").
Field reporter: "Jews are complaining that Hitler is gassing them, but Hitler makes the case that he is being called a fascist. Back to you Bob."
Bob: "It's getting ugly on both sides, isn't it?"
It's clear, judging from elite media (not Fox, but NPR, the NYT, the WP), that big money has decided that a race between Clinton and McCain is one that poses little threat, however it turns out; the big danger is Obama, who isn't fully bought and sold.
I don't think Obama is any great promise, but at least I don't know he's a whore. And that alone seems to be too much of a risk for the powers that be.
I also don't think Joe Conason is part of a conspiracy, but he is swept up in the environment the media creates. The amazing story is what I open with here: Clinton endorsing McCain as a more prepared president. That's huge. All progressive issues, on which McCain TOTALLY SUCKS, take a back seat to Bush's priorities: fear of terror. And that's gotten, what, one post at Salon?
As if the average American has more to fear from terrorists than their own bank about to foreclose on their house -- or the employer about to lay them off. We're talking millions of victims compared to the less-than-3,000 from 9/11, which was a one-day anomaly for which no one has been proven ultimately responsible through impartial judicial processes.
Not only is our democracy corrupt to its core, but the American people are denied even a forum for fixing it. Obama tries to fight a high-minded campaign and is attacked relentlessly until he starts to fire back, on legitimate issues, and he is now a hypocrite because he didn't just take it like a punching bag.
Where was the liberal press when "uniter-not-divider" Bush tore the nation apart? I don't recall anybody calling him a hypocrite outside of fringe journalism, until it became ridiculously obvious and it was WAY too late.
Humbug.
When the DVD I had just watched ended my channel was on Fox, where I had watched Tuesday's returns -- shows you how much TV I can bear to watch (I watched Fox because the digital cable can't tune in CNN).
What should I see but Bill O'Reilly's "talking points," scaremongering about Obama. United front indeed.
Clinton endorsed McCain over Obama citing her view that this election is about national security and McCain, unlike Obama, has the requisite experience.
Question 1: Is it okay that a candidate running for the Democratic nomination has placed George Bush's view -- that fighting "terror" militarily is our raison d'etre -- over choice, civil liberties, public services and government regulation (issues on which Obama is VASTLY superior to McCain)?
Question 2: If it is okay to make the most important issue our military "war on terror" -- as McCain understands it (remember, he's more qualified to "cross that threshold" according to Clinton) -- then how does Clinton match up to McCain without nuancing it in ways that would support Obama's opposition to the war?
I would posit that a Democratic candidate should be trying to blow a hole through the GOP's big diversion of the "war on terror." It is this diversion that has allowed the dismantling of our Constitution, the loss of over $1 trillion dollars (that a lot of health care and education), and the ability of industry to get favorable legislation without a lot of press ink (thanks to all the stories about the "war").
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
