Letters to the Editor
sajwan
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 13
-
unusually stupid question
[Read the article: Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Had the Obama campaign dismissed his loss in New Hampshire by casually suggesting that it's unsurprising that he lost given that the state is predominantly white, would that have been an appropriate comment to make?" - GG
This is an unusually stupid question.
It would have been completely appropriate question, if whites had been slaves, required a civil rights movement even after having been "freed", if to this day they continued to suffer discrimination, were a small minority population in almost all other states and never had a white as a significant candidate, never mind president.
Bill was stating the obvious, so if the issue is that it is not in good taste to bring up race in any shape manner or form, specifically due to the history of black people in America, then I can understand that.
However when a candidate takes the great majority of votes of a specific (fill in blank) voting block that makes them the (fill in blank) candidate. Isn't Huckabee the "Evangelical" candidate? Didn't Obama transform himself into the "Christian" candidate in S.C. to great effect? Christians are a voting block, blacks are a voting block, women are a voting block, Hispanics are a voting block, young people are a voting block, white protestant males are a voting block... The only reason it is not ok for Obama to be known as the "black" candidate is because people will discriminate against Obama in later elections due to having large majority support of black voters. Duh, no kidding, but those are the same people who “discriminated” against Democrats historically for carrying the black voting bloc? Shouldn’t we be going after those people instead of Bill? You know the fukkin people who actually discriminate due to race, gender or sexual orientation?
This pile on the Clintons was stupid with Whitewater, got old with travlegate, became ridiculus with the Monica impleachment (I hope it's recorded in history books as the Starr cumshot impeachement), and is now a pathetic joke. Note Timmy Russerts roundtable today on all stupid wild assed assertions Clinton. Dowd was her impecabble pompous empty headed self.
Anyways based on the reaction to Bills comments I now figure right around the time we develop inter-stellar warp speed we'll have become a color-blind society.
-
What cost Enlightenment
[Read the article: Did Hillary Clinton really win in Florida?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd love to take a closer look at Obama, but get side-tracked by the Obama faithful who feel a turnout of 2 million voters is inconsequential, who constantly demonstrate an appaling grasp of facts concerning the Florida election and when called on it respond with, "Well ok I am wrong and misinformed but my point is still valid." Not to mention those that will vote Republican or not vote at all if Obama is not the Dem candidate.
When Obama supporters act in ways that demonstrate they don't give a fuk about my vote or anyone else's vote who is not already of the Obama enlightened, my basic response is well, fuk you too.
-
WTF?
[Read the article: Obama and race in California]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@gingerredux
That's a pretty low blow, and entirely inaccurate. Obama's plan would indeed have covered his mother, and it will cover everyone who wants and can afford insurance as well as Clinton's plan would. – Majorajam
It will cover everyone who wants and can afford insurance? Isn’t that the current system?
Isn't the point that health care is becoming more and more unaffordable?
This getting to be like a bad episode of the Twilight Zone where everyone stands around their piles of bullshit trying to pursuade the other that their pile of bullshit is the better pile.
-
Choose! Past or future!
[Read the article: Obama breaks fundraising record]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]it seems that if you're over 40, you support Clinton, and if you're under 40, you support Obama. It's an unscientific study, to be sure, but I do think this election really is a choice between the past and the future.
-- PeteyG
I don't know how you choose the past or the future. I hope it does not mean Obama reminding all people over 40 that their past 40 years have been useless and that they unfortunately have no future.
Demographics are another name for tribes and human beings love to create tribes based on anything - race, nationality, sports team, sexual preference, political affiliation, fashion sense, you name it and of course age.
It has nothing to do with past or future. It has to do appealing to a specific demographic. In this case based on age.
The choosing the "past or future" slogan has to be one of the stupidest slogans since "compassionate conservatism" and actually we'd all be better off if were better at being here and now rather than in the past or future.
-
Cool
[Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow, this is so cool, all you have to do is say,
"My triumph is ETERNAL and TOTAL over you. - bs"
and you have already won every debate, argument or disagreement eternally and forever. Man, that is so easy.
ProxW try it. It is guaranteed to work for you.
-
Who does Iraq help? Stupid Question.
[Read the article: MoveOn endorses Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I suppported Move-on in the Betray-us scandal. They correctly identified Petraeus as acting like a political hack. Over-all they have supported and helped progressive causes. However being a mouth piece for a particular candidate vs progressive causes is a mistake. If Clinton does become the Dem candidate putting their full support behind her becomes problematic. How does the now perceived Obama organization morph into the support Clinton organization? Politicians can shift their allegiances like the wind, organizations not so much.
And on Iraq
Last night's debate was significant. On Iraq Hillary Clinton made little sense.
-- Ron Smith
You must have missed the part where In the 2006 elections, Obama endorsed Joe Lieberman for US senate. No one has clean hands in Iraq, just some are bloodier than others - Bush and the repubs the bloodiest by far.
-
Malkin gets it almost right
[Read the article: Conservative crackup over McCain continues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"To which I say: When did it become the Republican Party's top priority to 'get things done?'" -- Malkin
It's not a matter of not being able to ‘get things done’ because of "priorities", it's because they have demonstrated themselves to be incompetent imbeciles.
To wit Malkin herself.