Letters to the Editor
Steve1us
Published Letters: 102
-
Day late and a dollar short, Joan
[Read the article: Obama's borrowed words]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This story was already dead so why bring it up again, Joan? And your "admission" that you have questions about Obama's candidacy is so disingenuous it just makes you look silly. For those who have read your under the radar Hillary supporting posts and TV appearances it's been obvious what you have been trying to do. Also, the "for every one Obamabot there are five serious supporters" is the kind of condescending back-handed swipe one would expect from some neocon bloviator. My support for Obama is totally based on his real-world, fact-based belief that the divide and conquer philosophy of the Clintons and Roves doesn't work and we need to try another way. On the other hand, I wish I could say your performance this election season has been one of serious, realistic, fact-based reporting but in fact you have lost all credibility for me and many others with your knee-jerk, emotional support for Hillary simply because she is a woman.
-
Keep on for entertainment value?
[Read the article: Should Hillary Clinton drop out?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So the most compelling reason anyone can make is basically for her staying in is for entertainment sake - it's "exciting" or "democracy in action", as if you really care what the voters in Puerto Rico think in June. There is not one good valid reason for her to continue: we get the testing part - after 30-something primaries and caucuses and 20, jeez, 20 debates - he PASSED already. We get the engaged electorate part - they have shown that over and over and the vast majority of the enthusiasm is on the Obama side (Joan doesn't "get" people wanting to go home after months of volunteering - perhaps she should try it sometime). At this point the only reasons to continue are (a) to hope for some late miracle or shenanigans that will give it to Hillary or (b) if you secretly want McCain to win and hope to deplete the financial and emotional resources of Obama and his supporters. Pretty crappy reasons either way.
-
Any poster who writes this is all about race is a liar or delusional
[Read the article: John Lewis endorses Obama ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's funny to me that Clintonistas have to constantly deride Obama supporters with slurs like (just some of the ones I've read today): stupid, delusional, naive, liar, dreaming, etc. well we get the picture. While Clinton supporters are grounded, smart, unbiased and mature. So why do they resort to name-calling and descriptions that don't really apply: Obama is winning the college voters (smart), older college educated voters (mature), endorsements from numerous (grounded) prominent historians and diplomatic types (James McPherson and Susan Eisenhower to name two) and now Lewis - who when he endorsed Clinton would be considered unbiased by these same Clinton posters but now is racist because he wants to follow the wishes of his voters (who by the way were in favor of Clinton early on - knowing full well Obama was black - until they became acquainted with Obama). The reason they resort to these tactics is because they, like their candidate and her "35 years of experience", don't really have a let to stand on when comparing the virtues of the two candidates.
-
It's up to Texas and Ohio ... Uh, oh
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes they are Democratic primaries, not the general election, but I'm still uneasy that the state that gave us George Bush (Texans could have said: are you crazy, this guy as President?, but didn't) and the state that ensured his re-election (even after the focus on job loss and Democratic concentration there in 2004 Ohio went for Bush against its own self-interests) decide whether it's over or goes on. Are these really the people we want to entrust with deciding who our nominee is in 2008?
-
And this is new?
[Read the article: Clinton campaign: Forget what we said earlier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So tell me, please any Hillary supporter why should we believe anything the Clintons or members of their cabal say? It has been this way since the days of Billy lying and Hillary enablng: didn't inhale, Gennifer and Paula, Monica and defining is, through supporting and now denying NAFTA, through Burkle and not knowing that a vote for war was a vote for war, and flag-burning amendments. All the obfuscation and spin and lying, ALL of it, has been in the name of ego gratification for both Bill and Hillary. And these are the people you think will lead us out of the mess we are in? In the end, those voting in the Democratic primaries have to ask themselves,do we really and truly want four more years of these people, their followers, and their never-ending personal psychodramas that trump everything, even the national interest?
-
Another talking point for Clinton
[Read the article: What Howard Kurtz means by "media scrutiny"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Supporters of Hillary are now holding up the Kurtz column as an example of a media member who is willing to "expose" Obama. That's how far the Clinton campaign has sunk, although last night's fatuous answer by HRC on 60 minutes about how Obama "says" he isn't Muslim so she will take his for word for it, may have been worse.
-
Sobeone: Afraid of HRC's tax returns?
[Read the article: 50 superdelegates ready to endorse Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Clinton people get more desperate each day. The Canadian memo is now a scandal the size of Watergate and just saying the name Rezko "proves" Obama's sleaziness. This coming from a campaign and supporters of the CLINTONS for Chrissakes. Can you say tax returns? Or Kazakhstan? Wait till she, if she ever does, release their returns - talk about bombshells. Democracy is great but right now this race is all about the Clintons' egos - as if anything else factored into their decisions.
-
Joan Walsh: Hillary's stalking horse
[Read the article: Should Florida and Michigan vote again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once again, the Clinton campaign pushes an idea and Joan carries it forward like a dutiful soldier because she just "can't find any better alternative." How about making the logical and right decision when the total percentage of delegates required to earn the nomination has been increased due to leaving out Florida and Michigan: make the percentage for nomination proportional to the total number of delegates the same as it was before?