Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 228 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@jeb - incomplete sentence
[Read the article: David Brooks calls Barack Obama a sojourner]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've already listed Obama's experience and credit-worthy efforts. You refuse to give Obama any credit for anything he's ever done, using the rationale that if he didn't write the whole thing it doesn't count. Supporting and co-sponsoring a bill means you stand behind it. It's a brave thing to do, which is why every bill doesn't have 99 additional co-sponsors.
That's on you, and it's your choice to discount those efforts for the rationale you choose. Just be aware that, in my opinion, it's a superficial reason....
...AND...
It doesn't explain why McCain should get off the hook for the awful legislative things **he's** done - including but not limited to being one of the Keating Five, fighting against increased benefits for our soldiers (and then dishonestly taking credit for passing it), and worst of all, backing GWB's policies 90% of the time (by McCain's own admission), and completely backing the Iraq invasion and occupation to the hilt.
All your privilege to believe in - I'm just telling you it doesn't have much connection to the facts.
-
Great to see God has a Mac G4
[Read the article: Tom the Dancing Bug]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]omnIpotent?
-
Boy, some people really need this to be a horse race, don't they?
[Read the article: Why isn't Obama crushing McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Why isn't Obama crushing McCain?" Gee, Obama's only the odds=on favorite to win, consistently above in the polls at well above the margin of error for basically since he won the primary. And well above Bush's poll ratings over Kerry in 2004, I might add.
Neither convention's been held yet, neither candidate's even selected a veep, and Obama's still ahead. McCain is reduced to complaining, while Obama produces plan after plan that actually matches up with the experts....but still with the concern trolling.
I guess it beats the more accurate version of the conversation, "Why is McCain losing to Obama?" But that makes it less of a horse race, and someone might have to really pay attention to McCain's faults and utter lack of policy, judgement, plans, temperament, or ability to even keep his own word - or even keep his own words straight. But that would require reporting. Which is perhaps considered poor form if the actual facts happen to have a "liberal bias".
-
Thank you Joan
[Read the article: How cancer survivors think about the Edwards scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You very compassionately address the greys - and even colors - of adult relationships, and human reality, that don't fit so neatly into the black-and-white.
If the situation were reversed, and the husband were in a life-and-death battle with cancer, I don't think his wife could be blamed if she did everything she could for her husband, but also turned for comfort in another man's arms. It's not pretty - but doesn't have to be. It's human. It's human and it's real.
Otherwise, condensing the reality of adult lives and relationships into a bunch of black-and-white rules, loses so much information that all we're left with is a caricature.
And caricatures alway says more about the speakers, than the subject.
-
@gomezfj - kudos
[Read the article: How cancer survivors think about the Edwards scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree, and wish everyone would nose out of this. It's no more my business than Tom Cruz's religion or Jennifer Aniston's baby plans.
-
Obama's appearance shows the GOP-brainwashed he's not a Muslim
[Read the article: Sandbagged at Saddleback]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And that Obama's comfortable talking about religion, and that when inside a church he doesn't show horns or dissolve into a flaming puddle.
Otherwise, Obama's appearance wasn't to win the conservative vote. It was to make McCain fight for keep his own base - which also forces McCain to make statements that will cost him independents.
I haven't seen the Saddleback footage, and am not really interested. But from all counts I've read, McCain was clearly very well coached, and put in a great performance.
So that's the race we're in. We'll see if McCain shows up to a "discussion" that's exclusively Obama's base - I shan't hold my breath.
-
@Marko - here's the secret to little white lies
[Read the article: Sandbagged at Saddleback]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They're fine as long as they're little ones, and you're white.
-
I know many would love to see Hillary as VP
[Read the article: John McCain's summer of slime]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But the vote isn't poll-based, it's *Electoral*. And:
- Hillary doesn't give Obama a single new state he doesn't have in the bag already.
- Hillary will cause more red-state voters to vote *against* the Democratic ticket, simply because they hate her.
- Hillary campaigning as VP will introduce noise that will make it even harder for Obama to be heard.
The Democratic base *is* energized, and all the states in which Hillary could help are already going wholesale to the Democrats. What's left, and will decide the contest, is a battle over independents, and giving red state voters who'd vote for McCain every possible reason to stay home.
-
OK - can we please STFU about Sara Palin?
[Read the article: The dominatrix]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Especially as she is acting as the perfect smokescreen for McCain. And conservatives have decided they will love her no matter what - much more than they will McCain. Him they're barely tolerating.
So, can we put the attention back on the actual frickin' presidential candidates?
-
A perfect response by Obama
[Read the article: Obama: "This is exactly the time" for a debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was wondering how the Obama campaign and the Democratic party would deal with this obvious stalling tactic. This response is great. It succinctly shatters McCain's entire premise, by speaking the plain truth: there's no need for Obama and McCain to cancel their debate and gallop into Washington.
This also shows McCain as the candidate who's overreacting to a crisis, and Obama as the candidate who's calm and measured and keeping things in order.
I believe and hope that, in this statement, we're seeing the next president of the USA.
-
@ Tiberius - come on.
[Read the article: Obama: "This is exactly the time" for a debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's nothing about this crisis that's so freaky, that it requires everyone stop campaigning. Or that Senator Obama or McCain's help in the Senate is honestly really needed with.
What exactly would McCain accomplish with this alleged meeting? He doesn't even have a plan. He hasn't even voiced his criteria for a plan. The closest thing McCain's presented as direction so far, has been to demand someone "fire the head of the SEC". Which would fix absolutely nothing.
And this attempted McCain distraction also comes at a time when Obama is getting an increasingly large lead of polled voters. And while McCain's background as a vehement deregulator, his flip-flop to suddenly being a populist regulator, and his aide's Fannie Mae connections (after McCain's vociferous denials), are all coming into critical view.
McCain's attempt to cancel the debate, with some unasked and unneeded meeting with Bush, is thus a clear exercise in politics rather than problem-solving.