Letters to the Editor
Timelagged
Published Letters: 241 Editor's Choice: 12
-
@Jameka
[Read the article: Penn spreads the blame around]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well there is one. If you want a serious answer of course, which I doubt, since your use of the juvenile "Obamabot" makes it more likely that you just want to troll and not actually consider a response on its merits. Nevertheless, here it is:
Last Fall, Hillary Clinton was going to win. It was hers to lose. She was inevitable, she was it. We've got numerous pundits on video saying look, it's over, she's a sure thing. This was clear to almost everyone, and not that long ago. Even last Winter.
She had a majority in polls, a famous name, a huge, well-oiled, and near impossible to beat machine, with lots and lots of favors to call in. If you doubt that, just look at how hard it was, what high drama it involved, when people did start defecting from her.
With all this, it was hers to lose. And she did. People tore themselves away, some at great risk, with the machine threatening all sorts of things, but they did anyway and switched to Obama.
Obama was virtually unknown, a very long shot, plus African American and with a foreign sounding name. He rose from nothing in the polls to tying her in the polls, to winning in the polls. And then he won in the only poll that counts, the primaries and caucuses.
That's how.
Penn is of course interested in salvaging his reputation, so it's not his fault, any of this, he claims. Since he was in charge of the campaign, by all accounts, it's pretty easy to see how little he'll suceed in convincing anyone.
-
It's oppositional positioning, largely
[Read the article: Conservatism vs. authoritarianism: The British vs. the U.S. right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's not forget the role that political expedience and posturing plays in all this.
Bob Barr, arch-conservative (his recent "libertarian" candidacy notwithstanding) was harshly critical of Bill Clinton sending troops to Somalia, and this includes well before the famous firefight that soured the country on the peacekeeping efforts there.
This is a laughable stance given his support for President George W Bush's invasion of Iraq, which was done for far less magnanimous not to mention far less valid reasons.
My point is that being opposed to whatever the hell your opposing party is doing is not a trick limited only to the US. When living in the UK I found it almost comic to watch how vociferously the Tories lambasted Labour for the Irag invasion, when you just know that were it their own party doing the invading it would likely elicit a different response from them.
In the 1990s then, we saw the right wingers in the US opposing military use overseas, and, one can only conclude, pretty much entirely because it was a Democratic President who was ordering it.
A very pertinent case in point: A WaPo article (URL below or click my screenname) shows how John McCain opposed Clinton's attack against Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998. It describes how the action was applauded by many, including even Republicans.
Some senators, it says, however, were less than positive:
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) ... criticized the administration for ignoring problems other than bin Laden, including Iraq dragging its feet on arms inspections..."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm
So much for priorities, there's McCain on record being against chasing Bin Laden and for the distraction of Iraq.
Returning to your article, the point I'm making is that Labour has been in power in the UK for Donkey's years, or however that expression goes over there. The far right wing of the GOP has been in the White House on our side of the puddle. This, I submit, explains a lot of the difference. Not all, but a lot of it.
-
@jebldmm
[Read the article: Tennessee Dem leader suggests Obama has terrorist connections]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ayers is an admitted, unpunished, and unrepentant former terrorist, and he has held fundraiser's for Obama and given
Right, that's what the guy meant.
By the way, the fact that Ferraro "resigned" from the campaign...
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/12/ferraro_resigns/
...renders your last point as dishonest as your first, not to mention the serial apostrophe abuse, which makes it seem about as intelligent as what this politician said.