Letters to the Editor
farnsworth
Published Letters: 456 Editor's Choice: 21
-
What happened in NOVEMBER or 1968?
[Read the article: Clinton makes appeal to superdelegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Democrats lost.
So maybe taking the primary to the convention floor is not the best way for the Democrats to win.
Arguments over which candidate is more electable are unprovable, tiresome, and pointless.
If everyone pulls in the same direction, the Republicans don't stand a chance. With Obama running or with Clinton running.
Yet why do I have such a sinking feeling in my stomach when I think of the words "President McCain"?
-
Wow, this thread is still open?
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And still all kinds of name-calling by both sides.
Democrats - Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for decades!
-
ROFL
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's common practice in the magazine world for editors of magazines to respond personally, and angrily, in the letters sections of their publications. It's totally ethical and professional.
Hear hear!
-
Since this thread is still open, and since people are still praising Walsh and defending Clinton...
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thought experiment.
Let's pretend the still campaigning in June comment contained no reference to Kennedy's assassination, and instead just mentioned campaigning.
Actual transcript:
HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t. (crosstalk)….because again I’ve been around long enough, uh,… my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, uhhh..somewhere in the middle of June..
ARGUS LEADER: …June…
HILLARY CLINTON: (crosstalk)…right?… We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June, in California, ah, I…I just don’t understand it....
Alternate statement:
HILLARY CLINTON: I don’t. (crosstalk)….because again I’ve been around long enough, uh,… my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, uhhh..somewhere in the middle of June..
ARGUS LEADER: …June…
HILLARY CLINTON: (crosstalk)…right?… We all remember Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June, in California, ah, I…I just don’t understand it....
Now, with no reference to assassination, let's examine her words.
my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary, uhhh..somewhere in the middle of June
Utterly untrue. In Bill Clinton's own words, he had the nomination wrapped up in April. Just another politician's lie?
We all remember Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June, in California
Utterly irrelevant. By June of 1968, only a few hundred delegates had been chosen. The primary season was much different, and most delegates were yet to be selected.
So, without mentioning assassination, there is no justification whatsoever to her statement. It would still have merited comment, if only for its at-best-disingenuous nature.
This fact is my primary source of outrage at Walsh's comments. Clinton said something false and misleading (for the fourth time) that should have sparked a minor amount of negative reaction at least. Adding in the assassination reference made it reprehensible.
Anyone defending Clinton without recognizing that the comment was not based on reality in the first place is shilling for Clinton. Sorry, but that's the way it is.
Again, I am not an Obama supporter or a Clinton hater. I just call it the way I see it.
-
Check my comment on page 175
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is there any Clinton supporter or Walsh apologist who wants to answer my point? I am really interested in any rebuttal to my point, that even without any reference to assassination, Clinton's remarks were wrong and merited a negative reaction.
Is there any?
-
@Joanna C in Illinois
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for your positive comment.
I am not so much looking for an argument, as I am looking for intellectual honesty.
Yes, there are lots and lots of Obama supporters whose statements are utterly lacking in substance, and I decry them.
But Walsh's column is without justification. I would like to hear her, or one of her apologists, try to answer what I have to say.
Because, really, they can't. I have clearly pointed out the groundless nature of this particular drama. There will be no rebuttal of my point, because there is none. None of them want to address what I have to say, because what I have to say is based on facts and reason and logic.
It is possible that I will get called names or that there will be replies that impugn my motives or my honesty, but no one will answer my arguments.
And, for the record, let me restate: I am not an Obama supporter or a Clinton opponent.
-
Another new low for Clinton bashing
[Read the article: Ferraro wants study on sexism, racism in campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama does it again. Clearly the empty suit is not electable.
Clinton is again wantonly attacked, merely because she is a woman. This sets the quest for a female president back at least 1000 years.
Yes, I must clearly vote for McCain.
-
@KILL_YOUR_TELEVISION
[Read the article: Ferraro wants study on sexism, racism in campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Feeling a little tense?
Is your irony detector broken, off-line, nonexistent?
Did I do so well impersonating the followers of a certain candidate that I became indistinguishable?
Juvenal is smiling somewhere, I guess, as he hoists one with Jonathan Swift.
-
@teresa
[Read the article: Ferraro wants study on sexism, racism in campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow, another person took me seriously.
I really thought I was being over-the-top enough to be clear my post was satire.
Really, though, anyone who has read anything else I have written would know I don't think any thing like that. As an example, my posts on the A new low in Clinton bashing thread.
I guess irony is dead.
-
It's this knack I have
[Read the article: Ferraro wants study on sexism, racism in campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People think I am serious when I am being ironic, and people think I am joking when I am deadly serious. Makes Algebra exciting for my students.
Makes dating suck though.