Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
@ skylark
[Read the article: Who wants to be a Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why do you think Obama should be smeared by what an independent person says? Is it because you think Obama is responsible for Rev. Wright's words, or is it because you want our fucked up media to destroy your candidate's opponent? Because if you you choose this path, then there are a shitload of folks that can be tied to Clinton.
That said, what did Wright say that you think is wrong? Do you think Hillary Clinton knows what it is like to grow up a black man? Do you think rich white men haven't run the show in this nation since its founding?
What I find so offensive is that I believe a number of those on this site who want Wright's words to smear Obama by association don't even disagree with Wright -- they just see it as an opportunity for a drive by shooting of their candidate's competition.
To those I say: you deserve what happens in the general if your candidate wins.
-
@ skylark and others advocating more coverage of Rev. Wright
[Read the article: Who wants to be a Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][crickets chirping]
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Who wants to be a Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Man, you're right. Those damn ni...I mean black people earning money like white people. You keep on them.
It's not like they deserve the millions the Clintons get for...uhm, helping to swing international corporate deals by using their name and association with elected office. That's totally, 100 percent different. I mean, they're...uhm...ahh...white.
-
@ Mary Schumacher
[Read the article: Who wants to be a Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]He was running against a popular, moderate incumbent (the media hadn't covered the break-in much before the election and Nixon had created the EPA, restarted relations with China and many other moderate things (amazing to think that a shit like Nixon had to be this liberal given the environment at the time).
As for the Rev. Write "scandal" that the poster below demagogues upon, I ask for an answer to my questions below about that issue. No one from the Clinton camp has stepped up.
-
@ odog11
[Read the article: Who wants to be a Democrat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do you even know what you're talking about? You write: "It's much easier for the folks here to attack [ShawnWM] than to actually respond to [his] statements/questions." Many of us respond specifically to Shawn-White-Male's own words (quote, response, quote, response...) Just look a few inches down the page.
Are you Shawn with another handle? If not, I suggest you go back to read his other posts to see: a) just how far off the factual record he is, and b) see how transparently racist he can be. He doesn't do Clinton any good with his posts -- and you do yourself no favor by taking his side (even other vocal Clinton backers distance themselves from his evasive spin and attack maneuvers).
-
Who can blame Obama?
[Read the article: "Obama Watch"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Chris Wallace this Sunday went out of his way to make a big deal out of Rev. Wright -- what should be a non-issue in a rational world.
Wallace was so zealous (ignoring what Obama has already said) that would be cowardly for Obama to go his show without denouncing him. But to denounce him would be politically dangerous ("Obama attacks freedom of speech"). Best to just ignore Fox.
-
@ The Notorious W.E.S.
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton, sniper fire and Sinbad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Way to represent Clinton: change the subject.
I have to agree with others who point out that Clinton needs to find a new strategy here. If she wants to make "national security" and "threshold crossing" the issues in her run against Obama, I'd like to know how she plans to shift directions when she gets to the general -- because she sure as hell isn't going to beat McCain on the topic of international and military experience. And if she hasn't thought that far ahead, what does it say about her judgment, or her level of desperation?
Sure, her defenders can spin Clinton's Bosnia claims, or shift the subject to what came out of the mouth of someone Obama knows. But can you imagine the debate between McCain and Clinton?
McCain: "My opponent claims that this election is about national security, and I agree. She has claimed that going to Bosnia with Sinbad and Cheryl Crow gave her more experience than Barack Obama, and she may have been right about that too. But let's be serious, people: when it comes to knowing what our young men and women face overseas right now, my opponent hasn't got a clue."
Clinton does no progressive any good -- including herself -- by making military experience the gold standard in presidential qualifications.