Letters to the Editor
farnsworth
Published Letters: 449 Editor's Choice: 21
-
Logic?
[Read the article: Obama can't close the deal ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One Democrat defeats another Democrat in the Democratic primary. And this is read as proof that the loser cannot win in the general election.
Um, sorry, but there is no relevance here whatsoever.
Think about it. If you can.
-
I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat.
[Read the article: Obama can't close the deal ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Will Rogers said it almost a century ago.
And judging from the messages posted here, it still applies.
Democrats are poised to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. I am trying to be positive when I think that the McCain presidency will be so profoundly damaging to the country that the Republican party will fragment for the foreseeable future. I can hope for little more.
-
It's a race to the bottom!
[Read the article: The GOP on the verge of imploding]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Who will self-destruct first?
The Republicans, due to their myopia and ineptitude?
Or the Democrats, due to internecine conflict and cutting of their noses to spite their faces?
Stay tuned!
-
Broken link
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The "batting helmets looked like" link is broken.
-
Not such a "duh" moment
[Read the article: Who can win the big states?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you read the letters for any article even vaguely referencing the Democratic primary, you will see, over and over, people (Clinton supporters) claiming that Obama's failure to beat Clinton in the big states somehow proves that he can't win in November.
I always wonder when I read this what the source is for such clearly illogical thinking.
Is it an utter lack of understanding of the election process?
The results of a general election will perfectly mirror the results of a primary election.
Is it shameless perfidy?
I know this is not true, but it may help my candidate, so I will say it anyway.
Is it denial?
If I repeat this false conclusion, I don't have to admit that my candidate is being beaten.
Whatever the reason, it sure does get old after hundreds of repetitions. Will this article signal the end of this specious argument? I'm not betting on that.
-
@ Veronica in CA
[Read the article: Who can win the big states?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You would rather have McCain?????
Your attitude absolutely reeks of sour grapes. Maybe, as you say, that has nothing to do with your decision. I am having trouble understanding what your point is if that is the case, but I will take you at your word.
But, no matter how bad Obama may be...
You would rather have McCain?????
And you claim to be a Democrat?
-
You have to put Jeremiah Wright into context
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most of the people who are judging Wright are doing so based on ignorance. It is important to understand the history of the Christian church to have a basis to correctly decide about him. An understanding that Joan Walsh lacks, along with almost everyone who is gleefully using Wright as an excuse to promote either Clinton or McCain.
My minister gave a sermon a few weeks ago that put Wright's comments in context. Not that it will change the minds of anyone who is using Wright against Obama, but for those whose minds are open, click on my name to go to the website and read the real story on Wright.
Full disclosure: Not an Obama supporter, not a Wright supporter, not a Christian.
-
A challenge
[Read the article: John McCain's minister problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan Walsh, I challenge you to read this sermon by clicking on my name, see the reality of Wright's place in the history of the Christian church, and then continue to use him as a lever in your continuing crusade to defeat Obama in the primaries and in the general election.
-
It has to be about Obama
[Read the article: Clinton to appear on "The O'Reilly Factor"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It has to be about Obama because that is all Clinton is concerned about now. If she was running against Edwards it would be about Edwards. And so on.
However, it does show an extreme lack of discretion to go on the show hosted by the Right Wing's leading blowhard bigot asshole. She is legitimatizing his garbage by making that choice. It is truly disgusting.
Obama was wrong to grant an interview to that network. Clinton is way way way wrong to grant an interview to the vilest scumbag on a network of vile scumbags.
-
Could someone please explain
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why do the women want to harm Opus?
I cannot understand that part of the cartoon, and without that it is merely an unexplained, unkind, and groundless attack on Clinton supporters.
Which just isn't funny.
-
About the oil companies
[Read the article: Opus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They are openly robbing us.
Quarter after quarter of record profits, while average consumers are struggling just to buy enough gas to drive to work.
Anyone who believes that the oil companies would fail to pass any tax increases hasn't been paying attention.
-
Of course there will be an attack on Iran before Bush leaves office`
[Read the article: Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How else will they be able to justify postponing/cancelling the election?
-
@lolcait
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are a pathetic loser.
When will you come to grips with the fact that Obama beat Clinton? In a fight as fair as it gets in American politics?
Do we have to put up with your whining until November?
-
Thank God!
[Read the article: Things that don't exist in Harry Reid's world]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank God the Democrats control Congress. Imagine all the terrible things that would be happening if they didn't!
-
@Shawn
[Read the article: Night lands Clinton closer to oblivion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are soooo wise. Yes, you can perceive Obama's inelectability so clearly, how is it that we others cannot also see it.
Because Clinton has no electablility issues. It would be a cakewalk if she were the nominee.
And that's the way we should pick our nominee. Shawn's perceptions of electability. We should ignore any other issues at all.
Don't vote for who you want, or who you believe in, or whose policies you agree with, vote for the candidate that Shawn, with his extreme wisdom and deep vision, thinks is the most electable.
-
McCain supporters
[Read the article: Clinton: "I am in this race"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What a pathetic bunch of McCain supporters on this board.
"Hillbots" "Clintonistas" "Billary"
All this supports McCain.
"Obamanauts" "Obamaniacs"
All this supports McCain.
"If McCain wins it is Obama's fault!"
This supports McCain.
"If McCain wins it is Hillary's fault!"
This supports McCain.
"If Clinton wins the nomination I am voting for McCain!"
This clearly supports McCain.
"If Obama wins the nomination I am voting for McCain!"
This clearly supports McCain.
When McCain wins in November you all will know who to blame: The shrill, whiny, take-my-ball-and-go-home short-sighted child looking back out at you from the mirror.