Letters to the Editor
Number Six
Published Letters: 196 Editor's Choice: 2
-
I dunno about the taxes
[Read the article: With Obama on the offensive, the Democratic campaigns trade attacks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not sure Obama should be focused on these tax returns, unless he knows something about them specifically that we don't. The Clinton's tax return would be pretty hefty, as I'm pretty sure they didn't use the short form. Especially if its the last seven years of them we are talking about.
And even if there is something in them that is a little off, I very much doubt that there will be any smoking gun in there. I mean, the Clintons have a lot of experience in covering up their dirty laundry. Even if there is something hokey, it will be pretty buried, and all it takes sometimes to negate a criticism is to make the explanation so complex that people can't follow it.
But I do agree, he does have to hit back at her campaign. He can't continue to hope for the better angels of her nature, as it is fairly apparent from her character assassination tactics that her angels are locked away in a closet somewhere.
I would like to see Obama do three things for starters:
1) Start talking in details about her record in the senate- or more accurately lack of one. I'm still waiting to see a piece of major legislation she has written since taking her seat in the senate. If there is one, please let me know what it is. Obama's national legislation record might be a little thin, but as far as I can tell he still has done more in his three plus years than she has done in over twice that time. This is a very legitimate criticism of her, and I don't think sullies his character. I think he is starting to do this now, with his recent comments about her "foreign policy" experience as the opening salvo.
2) I would like to see a little something more about this Canada/NAFTA thing. Apparently there is some word out now that the Clinton campaign met with the Canadians as well, and while there is no record or proof of what Obama's guy said to them, the 'grain of salt' comments were actually from her side. Apparently the aides in the conservative PM's staff might have intentionally misrepresented or even outright lied about what actually happened to benefit Clinton in the Ohio primary.
3) And this one really pisses me off: In the ad her campaign ran about Obama and his subcommittee (which contrary to her claim, has nothing to do with Afghanistan), the picture of Obama was intentionally altered to make him look more black. Not only did they darken his skin tone, but they widened his face to make his nose look flatter.
So far her campaign has claimed that it was unintentional, due to a bad video transfer. I do video editing, and I know this is total bullshit. Sometimes you might need to fix color on video in situations like this, but its easy to do it accurately, and there is no reason you ever would need to widen the face.
This one is racist. Clear and simple. Maybe it doesn't prove the Clinton's are racists, but it certainly shows they are willing to do racist things if they think it would be advantageous to try even subtly to get the bigot vote. There is no excuse or explanation that would convince me otherwise. Why more people aren't talking about this, MSM or otherwise, or the Obama campaign is not bringing this up at all is beyond me. But they really should. It is really a disgusting, disgraceful thing for her campaign to do, and I know it would annihilate her campaign as it should if more people were aware of it.
-
@juliebird
[Read the article: With Obama on the offensive, the Democratic campaigns trade attacks]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because even though Obama is most likely the eventual candidate, Clinton seems to be on a scorched earth policy. She may very well be aiming to so utterly destroy Obama, that even though she still would not be the nominee he'd lose in November, and she could run again in '12 against McCain.
So she needs to be taken out soon to avoid this.