Letters to the Editor
sajwan
Published Letters: 487 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Denial is not a river in Egypt
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Blacks and women have disparate issues manifested differently in different parts of culture and points in history. This conversation is focused on who can have ultimate authority as president of the united states. Americans still prefer a man over a women in that regard. Obfuscating by suggesting it's about Clinton and not women in ultimate power is denial. Too bad.
The same people who are so quick to call out the race card, (obama himself continues to use the race card to his advantage), are just as quick to deny sexism and accuse Clinton of playing victim all the while denying evidence that shows sexism has worked against Clinton as well as racism has worked for Obama so far.
At this point Obama supporters and Clinton supporters are both talking past each other. The substance of the conversation does not matter - it's about winning and only winning.
-
They do not want us to know how rich they are
[Read the article: Why did Clinton wait to release her tax return?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe they were afraid of fanatics who feel people should not be allowed to write books and become wealthy. Making money from writing books is just a terrible thing to do. Obama would never write a book in order to acquire wealth. Oh wait he did, just not nearly as successfully.
Maybe they don't want anyone to know how much they gave to charity. I guess Obama and all of their supporters must give more than 10% of their gross to charity.
Maybe they wanted to hide that they did not dodge their civic duty and in fact paid a much higher percentage of taxes than people in their income range. I wonder if Obama paid a much higher percentage in taxes on his return? After all this tax-return-fuss, I imagine Obama supporters would really want to know.
"Yes we can"
is not to be confused with Deval Patrick's
"Together We Can"
even though it is easy to not only confuse Obamas and Patricks slogans but entire speeches as well. (Is Obama the Axelrod Puppet like Bush the Rove puppet?)
Anyways, this tax-return-non-story, that was created and promoted by the Obama machine, is another excellent example of, "Yes we can" be sleazy and unethical and still convince the masses we smell like roses.
-
Obama and the DNC rules...
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]were obviously made for each other and virtually guarantees a loss in the general election.
Why is Obama against a re-vote in MI and FL?
Why did Obama campaign and support for the uncommitted candidate in MI?
Why did he break the rules in FL and advertise there.
Why is he for rules when they favor him and against the rules when they don't?
If Obama had ethics he would act ethically but why after Obama slips and falls in the mud, so many people are convinced it is the next best thing and so fall in line to slip and fall into the mud as well?
-
Interesting
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Instead, we are locked in a campaign that is difficult for Clinton to win and near impossible for anyone to end."
Not sure what this means. If it is impossible to end that means it is difficult for both Clinton and Obama to win. So you are not saying it explicitly, but implicitly you are proposing that since no one can win, then someone should quit?
In that case I think Axelrod should quit, he like Rove is much to adept at selling unqualified candidates. He could sell snow to Eskimos as well as he sells empty-suits to Democrats.
-
McCain has a manhattan on the rocks...
[Read the article: McCain's "triumph" over a nonexistent heckler]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...and Jim Acosta reports it as John McCain cooling the earth and contributing to the fight against Global Warming.
Reagrdless of the fawning press coverage, a point in McCains favor is that he takes clearer stands on issues. He is not as weasely as the democratic candidates, especially Obama. All I know about Obama is that he gave an inconsequential speech 5 years ago on Iraq and his votes have supported the Iraq occupation ever since. Clinton gave Bush authority to wage war as a last resort and the man-child went and had hisself a little war. Big surprise. They both talk against the occupation while supporting it. That is weasely. McCain at least comes out and says he supports it and wants it to succeed. It maybe delusional but it is clear consistent position.
On the DC hand-gun ban case, McCain filed an amicus brief with the supreme court. Whether you agree with him or not, you know where he stands on that 2nd ammendment case. Obama and Clinton? Empty general platitudes. Obama is especially good at making empty platitudes ("individual rights are important, common sense safety measures, blah blah blah") sound specific without ever taking a specific position. (those not present "votes" were no accident). Unlike McCain, neither democratic candidate has taken a clear position on this case. to be clear, taking a clear position means coming down on side or the other, court cases do not allow you to be on both sides.
McCain does talk straighter (for a politician) and it is an advantage for him. So anyone who thinks McCain cannot win in the general election is as delusional as McCain is about Iraq. If the choice comes down to a delusional straight talker and a smart and clever weasel, who knows who the electorate will pick.