Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 384 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Jimlosaltos.
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gotta disagree with a lot of your comments here.
"as a politician voting "present" 129 times"
The present issue has been explained many times over, but the upshot is this. In the Illinois legislature, you can vote yes, no, and present, and many times there are good reasons to vote "present" for a bill, be it because you like most of the bill and think something should be changed, because you don't want the bill to achieve quorum, or some other reason. On the pro-choice issue, Obama crafted a strategy with Planned Parenthood to protect the seats of pro-choice representatives by killing dumb pro-life bills (which proliferate in state senates like weeds) through sheer lack of quorum. For more information, see:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/12/disparagement-o.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html
On abortion: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html
"and having never sponsored a major bill in the U.S. Senate"
Do you mean other than Obama-Lugar (the sequel to the very successful Nunn-Lugar nuclear nonproliferation bill, applied to conventional weapons) and Obama-Coburn (an ethics bill devoted to creating transparency in Congress.) Those are both pretty big, although admittedly not at the level of McCain-Feingold or Kennedy-Kassebaum. But can you point to any major legislation put forth by Sen. Clinton in her seven years as *my* Senator?
"His Karl-Rove-esq attack campaign AGAINST universal health care;"
Sen. Obama is for universal health care. He's said this many times over. He does not agree with Sen. Clinton's view on a mandate, as that basically means universal health insurance (at rates that might be prohibitive for people who can't afford it.) I presume you're referring to the "Harry and Louise"-ish mailer. Tough, perhaps, but not altogether unfair. But, speaking of Rovian tactics, perhaps you should take a look at these:
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_republican_democrat
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/01/bill-clintons-old-politics.html
"his $1 Trillion social security tax hike (OK, so he just didn't know what he is saying and doesn't truly want to increase taxes by $1,000,000,000,000 a year (did I get all 12 zeros in?) but isn't that the point?)."
No, that's not the point. With all due respect, you've bought into Clinton's absurd Nevada mailer without looking into it. What Sen. Obama advocated is raising the social security cap on payroll taxes. People who make under $97,000 a year are already paying payroll taxes, and Sen. Obama has even suggested making allowances for people who make less than $200,000. So this trillion dollar tax hike you speak of definitely wouldn't affect people making under $97,000 and probably wouldn't affect people making under $200,000. Hard to see this as some huge blow to the middle class. To hear him explain it, see:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/01/hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_social_security_and_taxes.php
So, I doubt this info will change your mind, but, trust me, there's more to these stories than what you're saying.
-
Anon.
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ken Enforth didn't suggest censorship. He suggested a way of figuring out if "anonymous" is 10 people posting once or one person posting ten times.
Nor did his comment have anything to do with "St. Obama." So, please, troll better.
-
Xeroid.
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"You said HRC would be a good candidate, I assume you based that on her record on women's right and children's right over 35 years."
I don't want to belittle Sen. Clinton's record, because it is substantial. But it is not 35 years long. 35 years ago she was still kicking around law school. And this would include 12 years at an establishment law firm. People talk about her work with the Children's Defense Fund, and it's an important organization. What they neglect to mention is that [a] she was there less than a year, and [b] Peter and Marian Wright Edelman don't even talk to the Clintons anymore after the welfare reform act of 1996. (Peter Edelman resigned the Clinton administration in protest.) Again, I don't want to claim Clinton has accomplished nothing of substance, because she has. But her record, I'm afraid, isn't much more substantial than Senator Obama's. For further info on this, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/opinion/20kristof.html
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=280103
http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/
"What community organization did he organize?"
Sen. Obama worked for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) on the South Side of Chicago in the late 80's and 90's. For more information, see:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/moberg
"I don't blame the blacks vote overwhelming for Obama over Clinton because of race rather than their record, but I expect better from someone like president of NOW."
"the blacks"? Yeah, I'm not touching this one.
-
Anon.
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"In other words more regressive taxes on what's left of the wage-earning professional class, largely people struggling to get by in high cost cities like Boston and San Jose. Now that'll really stimulate the economy! Taxes on the middle class! Go Ask Poppy 1991!"
Uh, news flash: People who make over $200,000 a year are NOT middle class.
For example, in Nevada (where this argument came up), only 3% of the electorate made over $97,000 a year, and that's only half of what we're talking about here. If 97% of the population makes less than you, you are NOT middle class.
-
Zenwick
[Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]""[T]he 'Harry and Louise'-ish mailer [was t]ough, perhaps, but not altogether unfair"????"
Yes. Admittedly, the couple around the table was a questionable button to push, but how was the information therein misleading?
http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM44_080130_nd_obama_hrc_healthcare_plan_forces_health_insurance2.pdf
Mind you, I'd have had more of a problem if we hadn't already seen two blatantly false mailers from the Clinton camp. One on abortion:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/12/taken_for_granite.html
And the other was the "trillion dollar tax hike" one I discussed a few posts ago. As it is, Sen. Obama was just giving what he's been getting.