Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 218 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@AKA Smith - The reason people are responding here is: Joan's articles has flawed facts *an* flawed assumptions.
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wasn't going to respond, I was just going to let go - but then I read this:
Of course, most of you don't want to bother to read that. Instead, you just prefer to dump on Joan.
I *did* bother to read it. I am *not* dumping on Joan. Nor are the great majority of the posters here.
We have honest, solid and real disagreements with her article, both in it's portrayal of the facts AND it's incredibly, unbelievably dead-wrong assessment and advice (!) to Obama.
Just because we disagree with you, doesn't mean we haven't read it and thought about it. Quite the contrary.
I don't usually call people BOTS, but many of you are behaving in just that manner by robotically refusing to reflect on the sexism directed towards Clinton and her supporters.
Let's say that's true.
One could make all of the same arguments towards people who are robotically refusing to address the real reasons Clinton lost.
1. her vote on the Iraq war
2. her dismissive attitude towards states that didn't vote for her
3. most directly affecting this nomination: her poor planning for the February primaries.
I will not reply further on the subject to anyone who has not indicated that they have actually read the Fallows' article I recommended. Try actually learning something for a change and not being so knee jerk ignorant.
This is a transparent dodge. And to put an insult at the end of it - come on. You're better than this, really.
Try reading your OWN words. You were the one who said that maybe if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it might teach younger women a lesson.
I think you are avoiding addressing this statement of yours. I think this is a mistake, but I can understand why. So, don't respond if you don't want. But please address it on your own, outside of this public forum.
This is a very ugly and vindictive sense of entitlement at work here - and I suspect it is damaging your life in ways you may not realize. You have the opportunity to route something damaging and ugly out of your psyche here.
Few of you have actually made any concrete suggestions on how Obama might actually win over Clinton supporters.
Probably because he doesn't need coaching from us. Obama has been nothing but unfailingly polite and professional throughout this campaign - even in the face of Clinton's deliberate belittling.
-
Thank you jkraher.
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Reagan Democrats are just the first Liebermans off the assembly line.
-
Yes Bernbart, that is an incredible baldfaced lie
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would like to see someone who thinks Hillary's losing is mostly due to unjust treatment, explain why the media is letting her get away with this.
-
@indigo218
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We are absolutely agreed that Obama should not choose Hillary as a VP. I for one am eager to see him back up his own words and philosophy.
However, about your desire for Hillary to run as an independent....would you really prefer to see McCain in office?
Because that's what would basically occur.
-
@sesander
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is a simple fact that Obama cannot win in November if he doesn't unify the party.
Absolutely. Just like Hillary would have to unify the party if she won.
But why is Obama offering Hillary a veep slot, necessary to unify the party?
Can't Obama just continue to be unfailingly gracious towards Hillary herself, and show to Hillary's many voters that he will also be better for them than McCain?
This does not bode well for Obama against McCain and the polls are indicating that very fact. Look at today's Gallup Poll showing that Obama only ties McCain without Hillary but with her, Democrats win 50% to 45%.
Last week, Obama was lower. Lot of movement in a few days, don't you think? Once Hillary finally concedes (to reality!) and drops out, Obama will rise more.
-
@Karenn22
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm another poster who hasn't insulted Joan at all.
I've already done a point-by-point refutation of this article, in the comments. I can link to them, if you like.
-
@indigo218
[Read the article: The other 18 million]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I feel more fraternal toward McCain lol... I could perhaps live with some of his conservative values,
Interesting.
You like the invasion of Iraq, outsourcing, out-of-control budgets, and a health care system that covers the least people for the highest price in the world?
another 4 years won't be so bad considering we have a dems majority senate
We had a Dem majority senate when GWB got in, too. Just sayin', that doesn't guarantee us safety.
Besides, I don't trust Obambi's foreign policy acumen. This guy really knows nothing, it's risky to trust security issues to a former community organizer who has questionable judgment.
Well, since his judgement has already proven superior to Clinton's *And* McCain's on Iraq, and McCain's on Iran, world policy, the economy, etc. etc...I question how Obama's judgement is more questionable.
If you think this is simple matter, think again.
Indeed. It's too complicated to leave it in the hands of people who've already messed it up - like Clinton and McCain.