Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Nancy Kallitechnis
Published Letters: 31
The game is unethical because it encourages players to enjoy killing people they have sex with. That is psychopathic behavior.
At the end of the article there's the suggestion that the Republican and Democrat parties might unite similarly, but the Republican party nomination was dramatically different. The media heavily pushed the Obama candidacy and sought to damage and end the Clinton campaign for months which Clinton supporters know is unfair. McCain doesn't have that burden to deal with which makes it much easier to unify his party. He is believed to have earned the nomination without special treatment from the media.
Also, Obama supporters were often extremely insulting to Clinton and her supporters on the blogs, in the news, etc. whereas Clinton supporters were much more mature and positive, And this is another hurdle the Obama campaign would have to deal with if Obama is nominated. In contrast, the McCain supporters did not treat other candidates in a public bullying and abusive manner which makes it easier for McCain to unify his party.
Furthermore, the Republicans did not have an intra-party insurgency. Their campaign was an open field which generally makes it much easier to unify the party once a nominee is chosen. In contrast, the Obama insurgency battled the party favorite (Clinton). Intra-party insurgencies have often damaged a party's chances of winning the general election. That is why the Republicans will have a much easier time unifying the party. Considering Clinton was the party favorite, got more votes and benefited from supporters who were more mature and positive toward other campaigns, she is the best able to unite the Democrats and undo the enormous damage the Obama campaign inflicted on the Democratic party. United with Hillary we can win the general election as the polls are showing now.
I have found an error in the article: the Democratic nominee is selected in August, thus it is incorrect to state that Obama won the nomination. In the past, other candidates have won enough pledged delegates to be certain of being the nominee, but this election year neither Clinton nor Obama have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, thus they must wait another two months for the superdelegates to vote for them.
Superdelegates can switch their preference whenever they want. Note that Clinton has gotten increasingly stronger during the past months while Obama has suffered major setbacks. Gary Hart had to drop out due to a problem that I assume most people find less bad than many of the problems that have been revealed about Obama. Thus, it is possible that Clinton will be the nominee.
There is almost a zero chance that 4 years of a McCain presidency will affect Roe vs. Wade. There have been many Republican presidents since Roe vs. Wade and none have made more than a dent in the legislation. Prime example: George W. Bush is very anti-choice and he led the most anti-choice government in 1999 (in Texas) yet many women voted for him during two elections and he did not overturn Roe vs.Wade. So if Bush did not end Roe vs. Wade in eight years then a moderate Republican like John McCain has almost zero chance of doing so.
I have read hundreds of posts by people who have legitimate concerns about Obama but foremost have legitimate reasons to prefer Hillary Clinton. It's standard practice for voters to cross over to the other side during elections. Check history and you will find what I say is true. So of course there will be some HRC supporters who stay home or vote for McCain in November.
Also, Clinton has not lost. The convention is in August. Furthermore, Obama has greatly benefited from DNC and media treating him much better than Clinton so many Clinton supporters do not feel he won fairly and there is massive amounts of documentation that prove that the media and DNC did treat Clinton much worse. How many less votes would Obama have gotten if the Wright story had been on the news 24 hours a day the week before super Tuesday?
Plus, I have read hundreds of blog posts about Obama supporters abusing Hillary Clinton supporters. This is unusual. Many times I've read people say they have been a Democrat all their lives and when their favored candidate lost they easily voted for the nominee, but there has been so much abuse hurled at HRC's supporters from the Obama supporters that this year a lot of lifelong Democrats say they will be voting for McCain or staying home. I think that the media should not underestimate the power of emotions and how they affect voters. People vote with their heart, not just their mind. The following is one example of the dozens of blog posts I have documented of abuse of HRC supporters:
"Yes, I am afraid. I have been from the beginning when the bullying started and the threats. I know one delegate from Texas who had her life threatened. I saw a girl told this team leader of Obama's would "rape" her and he went into gruesome detail...uh....since then....yes, it's not like this is a normal and respectful process this time."
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
