Letters to the Editor
Mike LeP
Published Letters: 384 Editor's Choice: 6
-
lolcait
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You liked the Clintons before the cheap suit ran and launched the same cheap brand of attacks we saw against Gore and Kerry, didn't you?
Heard that story a few times before, eh?
I thought Bill was an "okay" president who benefitted from the tech boom and some remarkably dull times. He was one hell of a lot better than the current President. I didn't have any real opinion on Hillary one way or another and only became invested in the race because of my regard for Sen. Obama.
I'm frankly shocked at how Hillary and Bill have proven their critics correct. Either I didn't see it in the 1990s or the Clintons have changed, because they really are a couple of narcissistic liars.
-
KStone
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You repeatedly insist that Obama is winning 90% or more of the black vote only because he's black. I'm willing to meet you halfway on this: Obama would have won a majority of blacks (say 75%) regardless of who he's running against. But part of the reason for the 50-point swing since October is the Clintons repeated, insulting racial comments.
We disagree, that's fine. I just wonder why you only ever seem to question the motives of blacks who back Obama. I must have missed your daily posts bitching about how low-income whites in Appalachia brainlessly support Hillary because she's Caucasian...
-
lolcait
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The more likely explanation is you allowed yourself to become predisposed to the same bullshit arguments the Republicans used against them, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
And yet I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. I guess I'm immune to Republican bullshit attacks when they're not levelled at the Clintons, go figure.
Now you admit you're "relishing" the bullshit attacks.
Either that, or the attacks on the Clintons' character now appear to be based in fact.
-
KStone
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You have repeatedly suggested that Obama's 90% + support among blacks is solely on the basis of race.
Not once have you ever suggested that Hillary's roughly 70% support among working class whites or senior citizens has anything to do with race.
Why is it so important to you to continually suggest that blacks vote on the basis of race when you give Hillary a pass for benefitting from the same dynamic?
It just seems to me you're trying to downplay Obama as a candidate. "Of course he's winning, he's black!
Only a Hillary supporter would argue that being black is now some kind of huge benefit in national politics. What color is the sky in your world?
-
It's time for an intervention...
[Read the article: Clinton makes another electability argument]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... because Hillary is too far in denial to realize it's over.
There's a certain type of Hillary supporter I've met who admire what some call her tenacity but I think of it more as gall - the willingness to do or say anything to get what she wants. For these people, any amount of dishonesty is acceptable if it gets a Democrat back in the White House, so Hillary's lack of basic decency is a plus.
The key difference between these folks and voters like me - Democrat-leaning Independents - is that I'm not just sick of George Bush's policies. I'm almost equally sick of his lowest common denominator political tactics and the sheer audacity of repeating untruths over and over again and counting on a certain percentage of people swallowing it. I'm tired of our elected officials treating us like idiots.
This tactic of constantly "moving the goalposts" is insulting to Democrats and makes Hillary look delusional and pathetic. Some people claim to believe the supers would be justified in overturning the delegate count and popular vote or that votes in Michigan and Florida should stand and Hillary should take this fight right up to the convention and straight to the courts if necessary.
But let's get real here: Nobody really believes this. It's entirely feigned. I know it, because these folks never question whether voters in Iowa or Wisconsin or any other state would feel disenfranchised if the DNC essentially told voters that months and months of primaries and caucuses meant nothing because ultimately, a bunch of party insiders think they know better than us.
So far as the electability argument, there's just nothing to back it up. There are only two reasons why "white, working class" who support Hillary now would vote for McCain in the fall: race and sour grapes.
And you know what? Let them go. If these voters are so hung up on race or so committed to Hillary that they'd sooner vote against the nominee and vote for a guy who stands diametrically opposed to their stated politics ... well, they're in the wrong party. Does the party really want to reward a candidate whose followers try to hold it hostage with the threat of defecting?
And they say Obama supporters are a cult of personality ...