Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 384 Editor's Choice: 5
-
@juneausmog.
[Read the article: My sanest conversation on TV, ever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To respond to your queries:
Distortions: Can you give me an example of a time when Senator Obama has deliberately distorted Senator Clinton's record? I can, the reverse. See, for example, her discussion of Yucca Mountain, or the next two points.
Swift-Boat on Iraq: Both Clintons have repeated obvious half-truths to make it seem Obama was less against the war then he in fact is. This has been well-documented all across the media. But you can start with the *real* (not racial) problems with Clinton's fairy tale remarks, which Tim Grieve unpacked here: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/08/bill_clinton/index.html
Brazenly false mailers on abortion and taxes. "Prove it?" Well, ok, the abortion one was documented here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html -- and it was so bad it's convinced some high-profile Clinton supporters in the pro-choice community to switch to Obama:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=01&year=2008&base_name=clinton_prochoice_supporter_fl
Regarding the false tax mailer, that was described here: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_social_security_and_taxes.php
Union-Busting rhetoric: I'd refer you to this piece by former BU law school dean Ronald Cass: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/bill_and_hillary_unionbusters.html -- "In his best, red-faced, finger-pointing, hoarse-shouting style...Bill told listeners that union leaders 'they think they're better than you are' and challenged workers to buck the unions. Of course, Hillary and Bill aren't suggesting that the 6 million members of unions endorsing Hillary should be independent. Union members should still vote for Hillary when union leaders say they should, but they also should vote for Hillary when the union says they shouldn't. That's the kind of independent thinking the Clintons want."
The Politics of Fear: Remarking on Senator Clinton's electability is hardly what is meant by "the politics of fear," and you know it. I refer to Senator Clinton's use of 9/11-Giuliani style talking points, as evidenced here: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/clinton_heighte.html -- Said Clinton: "I don’t think it was by accident that Al Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister...They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do..." When given a chance to retract this sort of fear-mongering in the Nevada debate, Clinton declined.
Playing the race card: I already explained this in the original post you were responding to, and you conveniently chose to ignore it. Go back and read it again. (To save you time, I said the LBJ and fairy-tale remarks weren't racially motivated, imho. They were just tone-deaf.)
Voter suppression: To argue the Clintons had nothing to do with the Nevada caucus lawsuit is, I'm sorry, disingenuous. The leaders of the teacher's union plaintiffs backed Clinton, and they used a law firm with strong Clinton ties. At the very least -- and this is indisputable -- rather than speak out against a late-entry lawsuit that would restrict voting, the Clintons backed it, even going so far as to spread distortions about the caucus impact (Clinton's "5-to-1" rant, explained here: http://webblog.abc7news.com/2008/01/the-back-story.html)
Chain e-mail smears and robocalls: Clinton campaign officials in Iowa spreading the anti-Obama muslim e-mails was, again, well-documented. For example, see here: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/third_clinton_v.html
The robocalls were also well-documented, as can be seen here: http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/third_clinton_v.html
So, to close, I'm hardly spreading "spurious, unconfirmed smears." People who've been following what's been going on for any length of time have seen all this go down, which is why a lot of "high-information" Democrats are leaving the Clinton side in droves.
-
Whitecat.
[Read the article: My sanest conversation on TV, ever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for proving my point: Marshall is by no means an Obamabot. In fact, he goes on -- in the entry you just posted -- to call himself thoroughly in the Clinton camp.
"To give you some perspective, I don't think there are many people who are bigger fans of Bill Clinton than I am or who've expended more ink defending him and his presidency. Nor am I particularly sold on Obama's candidacy...With the exception of a few days in early January I've gone on the assumption for many months that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. But I think Bill's actions have greatly diminished her."
This is to his credit, and I wish more Salon writers would follow his lead in announcing their support for a particular candidate.
By the way, it looks like John Edwards is getting the Clinton robocall treatment now too: http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/26/daughter-of-a-curtain-salesman-hits-son-of-a-millworker/
-
Whitecat.
[Read the article: My sanest conversation on TV, ever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My point regarding Marshall, when I quoted his earlier views on the race card, was this: "Marshall is by no means an Obamabot."
You just wrote: "Josh Marshal retains the ability to see Obama as a candidate, not a saviour."
Thus, we agree. Marshall could not be called an "Obamabot."
As for what constitutes an "Obamabot," it's a rather goofy and perverse label in the first place. For my part, I have never argued that Clinton's comments on LBJ were racist, only that they were top-heavy and easy to misconstrue. And, rather than apologize that her remarks could be misconstrued on MTP, she, as is her wont, instead blamed a vast Obama conspiracy.
As for whether Clinton will "say/do anything to win," well I'd agree with that, as -- it seems -- do a lot of Democratic and left-leaning pundits, unaffilated with the Obama campaign, who are aghast at the events of the past three weeks. Go back to my long post before. What, in your mind, could the Clintons do that would be beyond the pale? Anything?