Letters to the Editor
Kingbreaker
Published Letters: 107 Editor's Choice: 1
-
-- zenhead - Are you paying attention to the actual campaign at all?
[Read the article: New Clinton camp spin contradicts old Clinton camp spin]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The fact is that Obama also represents the ultra liberal wing of the Democrat Party. It should be taken as an omen that neither McGovern, Mondale, Kennedy, Kerry, and even Howard Dean ... have ALL bombed out in their respective races for President. There are millions of Republicans and Independents who will just loovvvve having a shot at the latest ultra liberal of the Democrats -- Barack Obama."
?WT Hell is this?
Obama and Clinton have nearly identical voting records in the senate. He got the "most liberal" label from the National review. Is that what passes for an obective measurement around here?
Obama's health plan doesn;t have mandates (requirements to buy insurance). Hillary's does. Other then her Iraq vote, that's the most substantive policy difference between the two candidates. Obama, using any reality-based facts, is probably a shade to the right of Clinton.
"Obama supporters should really begin to consider that they are on the Left side of the voting spectrum and that they have a very poor record of producing Presidents. This is where the sensible Democrat will consider whether having their Liberal leader elected,"
Care to explain the fact that Obama consistently draws more independents and moderate Republicans, and consistenly matches up better against McCain than Clinton does in the polls?
"or, being happy that John McCain has been beaten by the best Democrat poised to become a true historical figure -- the First Woman President in American history."
As if Obama wouldn't be any less historical?
The post I quote reflects poorly on the sane, rational, majority of Clinton supporters. Foaming at the mouth and ranting irrationally is not a winning strategy. You may want to rethink that message.
-
KateTex/Rezko
[Read the article: New Clinton camp spin contradicts old Clinton camp spin]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So how about Obama provides you a detailed account of his dealings with Rezko when Clinton provides her tax returns?
Personally, I think both issues are smokescreens, BS, irrelevant, and a total waste of time on the part of both candidates. I'd rather hear substantive arguments with real evidence that demonstrate how, specifically, Hillary would actually be better "answering the phone" than Obama or McCain.
-
Stuupid non-issue.
[Read the article: Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm prObama, just to declare my sympathies.
This entire issue is total bullshit. It dignifies no one on either side of the debate to do any of the following:
1) Claim one side or the other is racebaiting
2) Claim on side or the other has a "double-standard"
3) Use this issue as a wedge to repeat the same, tired talking points we've all heard a zillion times.
I would hope anyone seriously considering either candidate will leave these dogpoop issues where they belong - on the fringes. We're more mature than this.
-
Five steps to a 'successful' campaign
[Read the article: Obama advisor calls Clinton a "monster," apologizes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Step 1) Insert full clip into handle
Step 2) Rack the slide and chamber a round
Step 3) Flip off the thumb safety
Step 4) Shoot self in foot
This is the second moronic gaff by an Obama staffer. It's a damn shame too because Samantha Power is very bright and would make an excellent addition to any cabinet in a foreign policy capacity.
There's no question that this will be exploited heavily by the Clinton camp, and IMO not unjustly. The question is, will it be necessary to sack Power to make this a non-issue?
-
Step 5)
[Read the article: Obama advisor calls Clinton a "monster," apologizes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Step 5) Fire your brightest foreign policy advisor for shooting campaign in foot.
-
It's about professionalism
[Read the article: Obama advisor calls Clinton a "monster," apologizes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]NO public official should use discourse like Power used when there's any chance that it will be made public. This isn't a partisan thing, it's about professionalism. Power isn't professional. She needs to go (and went) because Obama's campaign MUST project an image of integrity if it's to succeed. It doesn;t matter what Power thinks, it's a matter of maintaining the level of discourse to a minimum standard. HRC staffers/supporters have probably vilated that standard too, but it does not mean the standard no longer applies. Power did the right thing by resigning.
But I owuldn;t worry about it in the long run - watch for Power to be quietly re-integrated into an Obama whitehouse.
-
If HRC had an ounce of integrity,
[Read the article: Clinton camp uses "monster" comment for fundraising appeal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She would accept the apology/resignation and not try to make a campaign issue of it.
Power got it wrong, clearly. But HRC would improve her image immensely by accepting the apology gracefully. But nope, to much $$$ to gain.
-
So, Joe. . .
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You've not been formally indicted for wifebeating, and no one suspects you of any criminal activity, but dont you think there are some . . . . questions that you need to answer about your wifebeating?
[/sarcasm]
-
Geraldine Ferrarro
[Read the article: Obama camp targets Clinton experience claims]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Has LOST it.
It's rich that she attempts to turn race into an unfair advantage for Obama, but joins in the unthinking chants of 'Misogyny' whenever anyone criticizes Clinton.
Will HRC do the decent thing and reprimand Gerry? Somehow I don;t think so.
-
Mantra Politics
[Read the article: Obama can't win general election, Clinton advisor says]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]HRC's only hope is to somehow convince the superdelegates to vote for her over Obama. The campaign tactics of the last cycle or so need to be seen in that light. This is really just a pathetic and transparent attempt to give the supers a 2nd or third thought about voting for Obama.
I also feel like some of the other posters above - I like to think of myself as mildly prObama but the Hillary campaign keeps on pushing me further and further away. Hillary can't convince voters that her policies are better, she can't convince anyone other than her base that she does in fact appeal to more of the electorate than Obama, and so she's left resorting to fear-mongering, pitched at the supers.
It really does sound like the mantra-politics perfected by Rove/Cheney/Bush et al. If you say it long enough, the WMD's really will be there. If you repeat it enough times, Al Qaeda and Saddam *will* be in cahoots. If you chant 'Rezko' or 'Farrakhan' a thousand times, maybe it will stick, despite having NO substance whatsoever.
I'll put the clothespin on in November and vote for HRC - reluctantly - but that stench is getting mighty powerful.