Letters to the Editor
lolcait
Published Letters: 266 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Do Obamabots feel crappy?
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do you Obamapaths ever feel like crap about yourselves?
You've done to Clinton what the Republicans did to Gore and Kerry. You've endorsed phony Republican and media claims of race-baiting against people who aren't racist and haven't "used race," and you've endorsed shutting down voting in two large states to facilitate your cheap candidate's cheap nomination victory.
I've never been "proud" to be a supporter of any candidate because all successful national politicians are dishonest and sellouts, but I've never been more proud not to be among the supporters of a candidate.
-
Losing isn't noble
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Senator Clinton has lost or will lose to be specific the popular vote and the pledged delegate count.
Her entire argument is that elections don't matter and she should be crowned the Nominee because of her supporters demographics.
That's it. That's her argument.
First, the pledged delegate count is arrived at through an undemocratic process that includes caucuses which discriminate against the poor, elderly and disabled.
She doesn't say elections don't matter, she says exactly what the Democratic party rules say: the delegates matter if someone reaches the 2025.
The candidates are essentially dead even in Democratic support. The one with extra votes gained in caucuses in Idaho, who wants to eliminated millions of votes in two huge swing states, should not be awarded the nomination.
In a stalemate, which we have, electability is paramount. If one candidate was blowing the other one away in pledged and popular count, that would be another story and another race.
Do you think the process should award the nomination to the pledged delegate leader, including caucuses, and eliminate the check it has in place (superdelegates) to avoid nominating a weak, marginalized LOSING candidate?
If you do you simply like to lose and that doesn't help causes you purport to believe in.
-
Obamapathology
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm just relishing Hillary Clinton's public humiliation and looking forward to laughing my ass off at you when the party finally shows her the door.
Of course you are.
-
Wild guess
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I live in Pennsylvania and I felt the same way in the waning days of Sen. Santorum when he realized he'd been beaten and spent days sputtering about media bias and Casey "ducking" him in debates. After the campaign she's run it's hard not to feel a little schadenfreude watching Hillary lose.
You liked the Clintons before the cheap suit ran and launched the same cheap brand of attacks we saw against Gore and Kerry, didn't you?
-
Who changed?
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm frankly shocked at how Hillary and Bill have proven their critics correct. Either I didn't see it in the 1990s or the Clintons have changed, because they really are a couple of narcissistic liars.
The more likely explanation is you allowed yourself to become predisposed to the same bullshit arguments the Republicans used against them, Al Gore, and John Kerry.
Now you admit you're "relishing" the bullshit attacks. Gut check time.
-
Be fair
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And yet I voted for Al Gore and John Kerry. I guess I'm immune to Republican bullshit attacks when they're not levelled at the Clintons, go figure.
No, when they're not leveled at the Clintons when a Clinton is running in a long, hotly contested race against a candidate you like better.
I suspect you would be justifiably outraged if this was a general election, there was no candidate Obama, and this attack was leveled against Clinton by a Republican.
Clinton isn't a racist. Clinton isn't a brilliant, evil genius who knows just where to place words and never leaves anything to chance. Clinton isn't "OK maybe not a racist but isn't above using dog whistles when they're useful."
The Clintons have a solid record on race that is deep enough and long enough that it would take a considerable degree of bad faith to assert any of the above.
This is just a nasty smear and the fact that it's leveled against people who we all know aren't racist or race-baiters just makes it nastier. Channeling George Wallace? Good God.
Be fair.
-
ShawnWM, schoolin the 'paths!
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What many fail to take into consideration in looking at his campaign is his experience and Axelrod's experience doing grassroots community organizing. His "machine" really is bottom up and that's what's winning him the nomination.
How'd that work out for Barack Dukakis in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Indiana? How's it going to work out in West Virginia and Kentucky? Spending that 5:1 on community organizing and getting huge, embarrassing defeats to Clinton in huge swing states out of it?
Great organization and management there. Do you really want them running this country?
-
"Republican Victory Determined to Strike in the US"
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Barack Dukakis the Precious is going to lose, folks.
You won't be able to pretend you didn't have all the data you need at your disposal to see it and even prevent it.
You're going to look as idiotic as Condoleeza Rice, standing there holding your "determined to strike" memo, trying to "hope" your way to a victory.
Pathologicial.
-
Obama: "I've been to 57 states"
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now Barack is saying he has been to 57 states.
Accept it or reveal that you're a RACIST.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
-
@ShawnWM
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Are you sure you're referring to ME? I've agreed with you 100% in everything I've seen you write yet.
Only in the subject line, schoolin the 'paths. The rest was directed at someone else, excuse my nonspecificity!
-
No justice no sympathy
[Read the article: Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have no sympathy for the black community at all at this point. YOu turned like rabid dogs on the Clintons, who have been extremely black-friendly and sympathetic throughout ALL of their governing ranging from appointments to blacks seeing the first real reduction in poverty since abolition. (median income gains of 17k annually, 22% reduction in blacks behind the poverty line, etc).
I understand the voting monolith. I even understood cheering an OJ Simpson acquittal. But turning like dogs on the Clintons puts me in the "no sympathy" category too. LIke you said, Barack Dukakis and his vulgar wife will be just fine after their November landslide defeat. So fine they won't even have to let Rezko buy their houses anymore. So will the other part of the Barry Dukakis coalition, stale old 60's acadmeic relics in midlife crisis.