Letters to the Editor
gezelligtexas
Published Letters: 472 Editor's Choice: 17
-
Is Hillary angling for 2012?
[Read the article: Clinton camp goes on offense against Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's the only logical explanation I can come up with for her continued candidacy. She has realized, as many here already have, that the numbers just don't add up for her, so she's going to try to ruin Obama's chances this year so that she can try again in 2012. If this is true, it means that she will continue these attacks for as long as she can (i.e. as long as she is perceived by the public as having a chance).
If y'all have a better reason for this, by all means, let me know.
-
@KateTex
[Read the article: Clinton camp goes on offense against Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please tell me why Clinton is still in this race even though she doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning.
Thanks.
-
Hillary's angling for a 2012 run
[Read the article: "Clinton will not be able to win the nomination"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And to do that without completely ruining the Democratic party (any more then she already has, that is) is to do what she can to make sure that Obama loses the general election in November.
I don't believe it's going to work though. I like Obama's chances in November and I think he will make a fine President, but even if he doesn't win the general, Hillary's campaign has burned too many bridges to have another shot at the White House. How will she convince the Democrats she pissed off by endorsing McCain to vote for her? I just don't see it happening.
-
Huh?
[Read the article: "Clinton will not be able to win the nomination"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problem is the win is even more tainted than Bush's 2000 "win"
Care to tell us how, or was that just another creative use of Clintonite hyperbole? I didn't see the Texas supreme court declare any winners. All I saw was a bunch of Democrats at our local elementary school caucusing for Obama, and him winning Texas according to the rules.
-
@doc
[Read the article: "Clinton will not be able to win the nomination"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The candidate who ends up with the most Democrats voting for him/her is the one our Party should choose. I wish Obama supporters could bring themselves to agree.
I'm an Obama supporter, so I'm already doing that.
-
@doc
[Read the article: "Clinton will not be able to win the nomination"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whooooooa. Slow down there, bubba. I've got an axe to grind with Hillary, and am still undecided on whether she'll get my vote in November if she gets the nomination.
However, unlike 25% of Hillary's supporters, I will not be voting for McCain either way, so you needn't worry about that. Again, unlike Clinton, my candidate did give a de facto endorsement to the Republican nominee over their rival in an attempt to ruin their chances in the general election.
-
@Xanthro
[Read the article: "Clinton will not be able to win the nomination"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton supporters had the same chance to caucus for their candidate as Obama supporters. What is "undemocratic" about that? Trying to compare Texas' process with the superdelegates is ridiculous. Everyone, I repeat, EVERYONE who voted in Texas had a chance to caucus, unlike the superdelegates, who are better than us. It took a few minutes, and was at civic centers and elementary schools across the country. Easily within walking, cycling, wheelchairing, and driving distance from our homes. If you argue that some people have to work, fine, but understand that it works both ways.
As for Florida and Michigan, they "disenfranchized" themselves when they broke the rules, knowing full well what the penalty was going to be. I can't believe that this even needs to be reiterated as many times as it has, but I know how impressionable some people are to talking points. Obama did not make them ignore the party's rules. Why are you trying to pin this on him? He wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan!
-
OK, I'll bite
[Read the article: Nagourney: "At least one scenario where Clinton could win"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've seen the Rev. Wright thing on YouTube several times, including the longer bits of the sermon that add more (gasp) context to what he said, and I have to ask: What did he say that was so wrong?
-It has been well documented that the government was sending drugs into the black neighborhoods of this country.
-US funded-terrorism did indeed come back and bite us in the ass on 9/11.
And that's just what is well known. Considering the bullshit the US government has historically put it's black population through (including the The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment amoung many others), is it really that difficult to understand why a black man from Rev. Wright's generation would say "God damn America" when faced with hypocritical patriotism from the mouthbreathers?
What did he say that was wrong?
-
OK, I'll bite.
[Read the article: Rev. Jeremiah Wright isn't the problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I posted this on a War room thread, but I thought this would be a better place for it:
I've seen the Rev. Wright thing on YouTube several times, including the longer bits of the sermon that add more (gasp) context to what he said, and I have to ask: What did he say that was so wrong?
-It has been well documented that the government was sending drugs into the black neighborhoods of this country.
-US funded-terrorism did indeed come back and bite us in the ass on 9/11.
And that's just what is well known. Considering the bullshit the US government has historically put it's black population through (including the The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment amoung many others), is it really that difficult to understand why a black man from Rev. Wright's generation would say "God damn America" when faced with hypocritical patriotism from the mouthbreathers?
What did he say that was wrong?
-
@sonofloud
[Read the article: Nagourney: "At least one scenario where Clinton could win"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How would a presidential candidate Obama defend himself against Republican criticism?
"Bill Clinton is a racist" and "Bill Clinton had an affair" won't work then.
Huh? When did Obama accuse Bill Clinton of being a racist?