Letters to the Editor
Number Six
Published Letters: 153 Editor's Choice: 2
-
@ AKA Smith
[Read the article: Professor Obama, I presume? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I respect your right to your opinions, as far as this 'professor' 'lecturer' thing, all I can ask is-
Are you fucking kidding me?
This you think is relevant, suggesting that he was fudging on his resume? This isn't even a case of Obama misspeaking. Its dickering over terminology. He taught required classes, the kids all called him professor; he did all the same exact things a professor did except work towards tenure. He very well might not have known himself his official job title wasn't professor. Hell, I didn't know there was any distinction till this war room posting.
This has to be one of the pettiest little criticisms I may have ever heard in a political campaign.
-
@billcap
[Read the article: Professor Obama, I presume? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course, the problem with what you just wrote is that while Obama in fact taught, Clinton was never under sniper fire or in any real danger, and was in fact lying.
-
Clinton supportrs must be happy...
[Read the article: FactCheck.org: Obama statement "a little too slick"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because there is almost something to be critical of here.
-
Isn't a completely worthless article
[Read the article: Clinton denies she said Obama can't win]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is in fact gossip, that's true. But it is telling in one way that I think gives it some relevance, although not a huge amount. The fact that the Clinton camp seems to have some motivation in expending effort to attack Bill Richardson for 'betraying' them says a lot to me to just how petty and small minded their campaign is. I mean, Obama is barely at issue in this whole thing. Hillary thinks he can't win? That's not really all that shocking. Its a load of crap, but not surprising that Clinton thinks it. Trying to claim that Richardson thinks he can't win, but is endorsing him anyway? How can you trust such a dishonest person like Richardson? That is what the main thrust of the Clinton campaign is all about here.
Doesn't anyone see a bit of relevance in the fact that when Richardson endorsed Obama (in a way that was as kind to the Clintons as possible, I might add), instead of being gracious and kind, and moving on, her campaign has seemed to have decided en masse to try to get revenge on this one superdelegate? That is all they're doing here, folks, trying to hurt Richardson with this character assassination, as lashing out at him or making sure he gets hurt is more important than winning.
It says two things to me: One, the Clintons seem to feel that the only way they an gain any more superdelegates or keep the ones they have is to scare them into supporting her, by showing what happens to those who are 'disloyal'.
The second thing it shows me is more of a reminder of how the Clintons deal with people who oppose them. I forgot what it was like during his Presidency for anyone who dissented. Or at least didn't care so much because they were mostly doing it against Conservatives who were just as nasty as they are. This indignant self righteous attitude that makes them feel they are justified in character assassination against anyone who does or says something they don't like. How dare he/she disagree with me? They must be evil. Let's call their integrity into question. They used to do this to people all the time, even when they had the better policy argument on their side.
It's an ugly way to do business. Sure, it's not as bad as what the GOP did to Max Cleland, it definitely is on the same road. And I'm really not interested in another four years of this kind of politics.
-
What a releif
[Read the article: Reports of Penn's ouster may be greatly exaggerated]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For a moment there, I thought that Penn getting fired would make the Clinton campaign suddenly competent.
*phew*
-
Joan,
[Read the article: My last word (for now) on sexism]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Does it mean anything to you that this sexism that is supposedly taking Hillary down is not evident to anyone unless you point it out repeatedly? I have no doubt that there are sexist statements out there against her, but anywhere close to as many as you like to think.
Why are you incapable of understanding the difference between a bad, corrupt candidate who is losing because she is bad and corrupt, and not because she is a woman? Did Katherine Harris get her head handed to her in Florida in '06 because she was a woman too?
I understand how frustrating it is to have 'the chosen one' burst into flames like this, but she really has nobody to blame for it but herself. She ran her campaign, she hired the morons to run it, she didn't fire the morons when their imbecility was self evident, she voted the way the polls told her to on Iraq, she's the one lying about her record, and she's the one who is losing. She is not losing because she is a woman, she is losing because she is a lousy candidate who is using her last name and her gender as a crutch. If Clinton were a man named Smith, this primary season would have been long over, and everyone knows it.
Look, again I'm not saying that there isn't sexism out there working against her. But it is very miniscule, and not why she is losing. It really does feminism a great deal of damage if prominent feminists act like sore losers about Hillary, unwilling to accept her loss has little to do with her gender. Again, she is losing because she is a lousy candidate. Especially considering the number of really great women in politics out there, in both parties, many of whom could be running for President themselves in a few years.