Letters to the Editor
Kingbreaker
Published Letters: 115 Editor's Choice: 1
-
All else being equal. . .
[Read the article: Obama hits back at Clinton ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Asher writes: "Obama Has Great Campaign Consultants, Therefore He'll Be A Great President. Maybe I misunderstood but it sounds like some of you are saying that."
Allow me a 'Russert,' if you will:
Candidate A and B have exactly the same qualifications, positions, and personalities except that. . .
Candidate A has a better staff.
Candidate B has a lesser staff.
Who would you vote for?
We aren't choosing a good candidate over a bad candidate, we're choosing an extremely good candidate over a good candidate here. Moreover, the ad highlights the most important policy decisions a president (or Senator) needs to make. This is rather more important than who has the better staff.
-
Hello??
[Read the article: Obama hits back at Clinton ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@ -- lolcait
The only empty vapor is your commentary. Take an afternoon, go to your local bookstore, and read "Dreams of my Father" with an open mind. The first 50 pages renders your 'argument' a pathetic, empty joke. The book was written when he was 33, an unknown, without a ghostwriter or political agenda, and provides ample evidence that he has had more relevant life experience in that short span of time then a bakers' dozen of bloviating pundits and trolls.
@Rosenkavalier /-- wright5579 --
You both perpetuate the errant conflation of two distinct issues:
1) Was it right to get into Iraq in the first place and
2) What do we do about it now?
Obama's stance on #1, at the time mattered because he was setting up his run for president. He had every reason to sway with the breeze like Hillary, but he didn't. He stood up for his convictions, and history has borne them out, unlike Hillary's political calculations. Cf. the recent Iran vote.
On number 2)the policies between Clinton and O are basically the same.
"I happen to think that's by design. Who knows what we may get in Obama."
It sounds like you are making a claim that Obama is secretive. But you are only revealing your own unwillingness to read the available info with an open mind. Ostrich, meet hole in the ground.
-
Because. . . .
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And why is it not acceptable for Hillary Clinton to "bridge the gap with the right" but to laud the same thing when Obama touts it?"
This is going to sound blunt.
Because she sucks at it. Look at the primary results on cnn.com for confirmation.
It's unfortunate, but it's true. We have an important factual metric for measuring the "crossover appeal" of independents and moderate republicans. In droves, they vote for Obama. And, wingnut conspiracy theories aside, it's because they actually like him better than McBush or Hillary.
The Democrats lose election after election because they don't appeal to independents and moderates sufficiently. Here we have a candidate who doesn't have this weakness, and yet the Dem establishment rejects this golden opportunity. This would be riotously funny if it weren't so pitiful.
-
@wright,
[Read the article: Obama hits back at Clinton ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wright -
I've been to Hill's site plenty of times. It's good, has the details, etc. I've done the same for Obama. Also a good, slick website, chock full of info. I've also scouted the MSM and the blogs for more information on both candidates, and it is ridiculously easy to find.
If you have hard data that suggests a deliberate campaign from O to withhold information, I would love to see it because I don't get to vote until May and I'm open to persuasion. But until then your distinction between "disseminating information" and relying on voters to seek it is not really that useful from an analytical point of view. In this day and age, there's simply no excuse to ignore available information because you can't be bothered to click on a web link.
-
Wowz. . . .
[Read the article: The McCain/Hagee story picks up steam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It never pays to let the actual facts get in the way of a good bogeyman it seems. While you're at it, you missed the point that O's middle name is Hussein, his first name rhymes with Osama, and he looks kinda like Farrakhan.[/Sarcasm]
-
Doh. . .
[Read the article: The McCain/Hagee story picks up steam]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My comments in response to -- nabalzbbfr. Clearly.