Letters to the Editor
Dana Runs
Published Letters: 161 Editor's Choice: 15
-
I dunno.
[Read the article: "Present" tension ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Doesn't pass the smell test, for me. Sounds like so much revisionist history. Which tarnishes Obama on two sides, one for the vote and the other for the phoney-baloney "explanation."
And I just voted for the man, so don't think I'm a Hillary shill.
-
I thought it ham-handed panhandling.
[Read the article: Hilary Clinton's photo album]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As one who donated to the Clinton campaign, I received that email. I thought it was tacky and insincere. My guess is that the "letters" are fake. Each one of them screamed, "Send money!" which is not what I expect from a "warm note" and photo album thanking me for my support.
Next she'll be sending out images of Sally Struthers standing in a group of starving kids and begging for donations so that Hillary can save the children.
I thought it was insulting.
-
Absolutely fair play.
[Read the article: Clinton uses McCain advisor's words for attack on Obama ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday, but I think the Hillary email is a good one.
1. She's going to fight for her candidacy, and she should. I wouldn't want a president who didn't.
2. It's fair comment, especially if it's true.
3. It shows that Clinton is a leader, and that Obama is taking her ideas, which, if true, is something that needs to be pointed out.
4. This is a tiny, microscopic inkling of what we'll see from the McCain campaign if Obama is the nominee, and we all need to see this kind of thing now, and how Obama responds to it.
-
Please, children.
[Read the article: Clinton uses McCain advisor's words for attack on Obama ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Go play with your X-Box and let the adults use the Salon bandwidth. That's a good boy...
-
@ melthough
[Read the article: Clinton uses McCain advisor's words for attack on Obama ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You asked:
How did you decide between Clinton and Obama?
It wasn't easy. I like them both, and I think either one would make a good president. I actually think Hillary would make the better, more capable president, but Obama is more electable and will be more of an inspirational leader rather than a technician. And I contributed to both campaigns.
In the hours before the California primary I settled on Obama because I simply believe that, with his cultish movement, he's easier to elect. He appeals to a broad section of the population, and has proved that he can turn out big numbers. And when my partner made a donation to the Obama campaign it was actually matched by a Republican! I thought that was impressive, and is an indication that Obama might really be able to sweep in with a huge mandate that Clinton would likely lack, due to the mindless madness of Clinton haters nationwide that would limit her appeal.
Imagine, Obama sweeping to victory with a 45 state blow-out. I think it could happen. I don't think Hillary could do the same thing. So, although I think Clinton would make a better president, I am not as confident in her electability and think Obama could come in with a gigantic mandate.
Plus, in the unlikely event that Hillary agreed to be Obama's Veep (in order to "unify the party" in the wake of neither having the necessary delegates to win the nomination outright), I think it would all but guarantee that the White House stayed Democratic for the next 16 years.
Not compelling, perhaps, but that's my reasoning. Policywise, the two are almost identical twins, though they are going to great lengths to point out the differences.
-
Moderating is sexy!
[Read the article: A note about War Room's reader comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Alex, be my sexy baby. :)
Another vote for ditching Anonymous. And a vote for more posts by AKA Smith, whose posts are hawt! ;-)
-
What if he had read excerpts of MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech and tried to pass it off as his own?
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Would that have been okay, too, even if MLK's family had given him permission? No, it wouldn't. The issue is that we expect to hear a candidate's own words, especially when he is (ironically) speaking about how important words are!
Catch-phrases vs. speech excertps: The two are not the same. Using broad political catch-phrases is not the same as repeating greath swaths of someone else's speech, verbatim, even if that speech contains some catch-phrases. This wasn't just using an oft-quoted, hackneyed political bumper-sticker quote, it was appropriation of two or three pages of another's speech, word for word. And it makes no difference if he had permission.
In fact, Obama has concerned me from the start. His "Yes, we can!" slogan was appropriated directly from Cesar Chavez, as anyone who, like me, knows the Chavez family recalls. You'd think a guy who is good enough to be our president would be able to write his own slogans, or at least have his writers write an original slogan, and not have to rip-off others who built their identities around slogans that they built.
I'm beginning to suspect that my one Obama concern is actually worth worring about: that Obama is an empty suit.
And I voted for the man, so don't go calling me a Hillary shill. Put down your Kool-Aid long enough to look at this issue, and you'll agree that if it had been Hillary who did it, she would be tarred and feathered for it.
-
Oh, thank goodness.
[Read the article: TV title of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thought I was going to have to go all day without seeing any negative messages in the media about my body image. Thankfully, there's this gem, to remind me of what a loser I am if I have trouble squeezing into those size 2 jeans.
Another banner TV day for women...