Letters to the Editor
chappellkm
Published Letters: 31
-
Not really...
[Read the article: Crazy for Jay-Z]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This album, while much better than Kingdom Come, is mediocre at best. Who cares if Jay-Z made a non-commercial album? The Clipse released 'Hell Hath No Fury' last year, and that album has better beats and tougher, better rhyming (and better songs) than Jay-Z could ever pull off. It's as non-commercial as it gets.
Best rap album this year is Pharaohe Monch's 'Desire'. Had 'The Carter III' come out this year, Jay-Z wouldn't even be in the discussion.
-
Arguments aside...
[Read the article: The Clinton-Obama contest gets rougher]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I will not vote for HRC unless she runs against Giuliani, Huckabee, or Thompson. And I am sure a lot of Democrats feel the same way.
-
My second national political win ever!
[Read the article: Barack Obama wins Virginia; Republican side too close to call]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It has been 10 years of voting, and this is only the second thing I've won on a national level. Pretty awesome. Way to go Virginia.
-
For the Democratic Party, one small thing to consider:
[Read the article: Obama takes Wyoming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Considering that Obama will be ahead in the delegate count when the convention rolls around, any super delegate coup in Senator Clinton's favor will be perceived by some (most?) as some kind of evil, pseudo-racist, "Bush in 2000" occurrence. This will disenfranchise voters, particularly black ones. I think that's part of the reason the 'Obama as VP' meme has been widely circulated by the Clinton campaign this past week. It would perhaps help to mitigate the intense feelings that would arise should Obama be screwed over.
Mind you, I am not rallying against the role of super delegates, nor misunderstanding why they were put in place. I am not calling for a change in the rules. But I would think that super delegates would understand the effect of any positive break in Clinton's favor. Hell, Nader's running again.
John McCain will probably be our next President.
-
Let's be serious.
[Read the article: Obama camp targets Clinton experience claims]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The New York Times does a pretty fair job of analyzing HRC's experience claims.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
It is worth noting, as we wax poetic about Hillary's awesome experience, that this is a claim that only she and her most ardent supporters can claim as the truth. Not one shred of real evidence exists that Hillary Clinton influenced any of the major decisions her husband undertook beyond her assertion that she did influence him.
If you're in love with Hillary, that's great. But that's a lot of faith in a candidate. It's almost Obamanian.
-
Decent piece...
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but hardly earth shattering. We cannot know now what the consequences of electing a black man or a woman will be in November. Everything we have is speculation, sour grapes, and bravado.
To angry Clinton supporters on this thread, consider your outrage if Barack Obama had answered a question about Hillary Clinton's sexual preferences, on national TV, with nutso right-wing talking point 'she's not a lesbian, as far as I know.' Imagine, for a second, the outrage you would have felt. And then get back to me about how unfair things have been for Hillary Clinton.
Politics, like America, is not about fairness. America is a racist and sexist country, as are politics. The two remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination came to this point on April 11 under two very different sets of circumstances; one year ago, very few people were wondering if being a woman would hurt presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in her quest for the White House, let alone the nomination. Everyone (myself included) wondered whether a black man could win anything. The ability to play up or play down these media narratives has been the difference in this primary season AND speaks to one of the legitimate knocks against Senator Clinton. She is not the campaigner her husband was, and I think that's for damn sure true.
Obama has simply played the game better. It's a bitter pill to swallow. I would be extremely disappointed if Obama were not 'winning' the nomination. But consider for a second that Senator Clinton is not the victim of some sexist right wing cabal. She's just not very good at this campaign thing, which sucks because it is no reflection on how good of a President one might be. But it's the game you have to play, and she didn't come prepared for it. This is not Obama's fault. And it certainly doesn't mean that John McCain would be a better President, for God's sake. McCain? Good God.
-
@maturity
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"For you Obama workshippers, I have a simple question, please give me your answer: if you had two daughters, will you bring them to the Church of Trinity to hear Pastor Wright spew his hatred of America? Would you remain impassive as you hear those hateful comments? Would you no have a reaction as the most anti-semitic, L. Farakkhan is honored in that church. As an american and a Jew I would no have stayed a day there."
You are being disingenuous. Not only are you misrepresenting the Reverend Wright's views (which is your prerogative, as a Clinton supporter) but you are projecting your suspicions into the congregation. It does not follow that all members of Reverend Wright's church are anti-Semites or hate America, even if Jeremiah Wright were indeed an anti-American anti-Semite.
-
To Faulkner Jr.
[Read the article: A great debate about Obama and Appalachia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sir, I am a black man living in the city of Richmond VA now.I know exactly how you feel.