Letters to the Editor
Mike LeP
Published Letters: 402 Editor's Choice: 6
-
@damnthatxanadu
[Read the article: Fact-checking Clinton's RFK comment]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And why didn't Obama settle the question and go with the revote....if he was so likely to win?
Somehow that defies logic.
So far as I know a revote was never on the table. If the state party did offer a revote he'd be foolish not to accept it, since Obama is tied with Hillary in Michigan. A revote in MI effectively ends Hillary's claim to the popular vote advantage.
-
Aaron - the lack of self-awareness is shocking ...
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I voted for Obama in spite of his followers, whose uncritical fanaticism and insane hypersensitivity had for a long time turned me off to him.
Hillary supporters at this site insist over and over that Clinton should win the nomination (despite trailing in every metric) and swear up and down they'll never back Obama in the fall.
But we're the ones who are fanatically devoted to our candidate?????
Denial ain't just a river ...
-
@ jebldmm
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She wasn't referencing Obama being killed. She was referencing a very memorable case in which a candidate was campaigning in June.
You know what? I agree with you, except this is politics and not tiddly winks. Are you and Joan really shocked, SHOCKED that a politician would *GASP* misconstrue his opponent's own words??? The horror!!!
This may come as a shock, but Hillary has been doing this to Obama throughout the campaign and vice versa. The only difference is that Hillary is so completely tone deaf that it takes little effort to make her look like a smacked ass. You can count on Hillary "misspeaking" on a weekly basis.
-
Cultists?
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Linda English, presumably a lifelong, presents a War & Peace length monologue about how, with great sadness, she cannot vote for Obama in November because he hurt Clintons wittle feewings, as if any of us really give a shit who she votes for.
And OBAMA supporters are cultists? You folks are outright threatening to hold the party hostage if you don't get what you want. I prescribe fewer Joan Walsh columns and more therapy.
-
The Joan Walsh pattern
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. Hillary says something that's, at best, incredibly tone deaf and insulting
2. Realizing this is a political campaign, the Obama camp actually uses Clinton's words against her (imagine that)
3. Joan Walsh ignores the countless examples of Hillary doing the same (for example, the "bitter" remarks) and lays into Obama, blaming him taking advantage of stupid things said by his opponent, complaining about gender and media bias, and threatening to withold her votes if Hillary isn't treated better.
Ms. Walsh, most of the people you're lecturing spent a large swath of the 1990s defending the Clintons from political attacks. We did this out of a sense of partisanship and because the bulk of the criticism (but not all of it) aimed at them was unfair. The media was largely complicit in defending Bill and giving him the benefit of the doubt. And throughout this primary, Democrats in general and the Obama campaign in particular have ignored all of the lies, the pardons, the shady business deals and associations, etc. and acted like even mentioning the slimy side of the Clinton years would be gauche.
Now you're actually whining that the Clintons have been treated poorly??? It seems to me these folks have been getting the benefit of the doubt for more than 15 years now, and the only reason right-minded Democrats are calling them on their bullshit is Bill and Hillary have put their own mammoth sense of entitlement ahead of the party. And folks like you are STILL blubbering about how unfair it all is - classic Clintonian self-pity.
You are a Grade A crybaby, and I'm sick and tired of the double-standards and threats when you don't get what you want. It's time to call a spade a spade: You are so committed to the idea of a female president that you're willing to overlook anything Hillary says or does. In fact, Hillary's patently offensive and frankly bizarre comments are in your universe, Obama's fault. And we'd all be swimming in rivers of chocolate and farting rainbows if Hillary and her husband sent us back to the magic year 1992.
Enough already.
-
jpetty - "glassy-eyed Clinton fanatics"?
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps you didn't see Joan Walsh's spittle-flinging tirade on Hardball? Or the legion of Clinton supporters on Salon, who insist that Hillary is winning (despite losing by every metric) and try to hold the party hostage by threatening to vote for McCain in the fall?
For all the talk about Obamamaniacs, Obamabots, etc. it seems to me Hillary supporters are some of the most deranged, sour-grape sucking cultists I've ever seen. You folks make Bush's most fervent backers look "hinged" by comparison.
-
This 30 year democrat will be leaving the party after the convention if they give it to Obama
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good. Nobody cares. Stop slamming the door on your way out and leave already. The party is better off without you.
-
@KStone
[Read the article: Obama: General election begins after Tuesday]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The premature ejaculation of the Obama supporters doesn't doesn't surprise you? It's in keeping with their candidates continual claims of victory. Just add this one to the pile.
Two part question:
1. How is Hillary Clinton going to win the nomination?
2. If you have an answer for #1, I'd like to know if you think her path to victory is fair and ethical, and if it'd be seen as legitimate?
Given Obama's 150 or so lead in pledged delegates and the fact that only a few states/territories remain, it seems to me Hillary's only plausible path to the nomination includes getting MI and FL delegates seated in proportion to an illegitimate vote from January, giving Obama zero delegates in Michigan (since he wasn't on the ballot). That, plus winning all remaining contests and convincing a majority of unpledged supers to back her campaign.
That is her one path to victory. Do you honestly think that's fair, or that a candidate who wins the nomination that way stands any shot in the general election this fall?
Thanks in advance for your reply.