Letters to the Editor
Rambling Rose 22
Published Letters: 757 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Of Course Obama Is Not Invested.
[Read the article: Update: Michelle Obama disagrees with me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What exactly does Obama mean about not being as invested in the battles of the sixites? Oh please tell me that's not a jab at people over the age of 50 in order to pick up 3 votes from some grunge band in Oregan who, like dude, doesn't even bother to vote!!
No, I'm sure Obama isn't as invested in ANYTHING that millions of us worked and fought for back in the 60's, and he's too arrogant and full of himself to even see any relevance to today's issues and the battles of the 60's. Obama's age bracket doesn't believe in causes. Just ask them. They believe in quick pay-offs, cutting corners, entitlement packages for themselves, and no need to do any real work because everyone's been telling you since you were 4 how special you were!
The greatest myth being perpetuated against Democrats right now is that Obama is some kind of change agent, hope agent. Gee. Really? No he's not. We had "short resume'" and on-the-job training with Junior Bush. He wasn't vested in the battles of the sixties either.
-
Wrong Question
[Read the article: Who's to blame for the race politics?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You media types act like race IS NOT AN issue in the Democratic Primary campaign. And you seem to be the only ones who think that somehow it was never going to be mentioned, a factor, a reason why people would make their own voting choices, and everything else inbetween.
Race was a factor the moment that Obama came into the campaign. What? You didn't think we noticed that a black guy was in this thing? Or one of the candidates wears earrings AND lipstick? Or McCain has that lump on his cheek, and John Edwards really does have a nice head of hair? Give us a break. Of course we notice these things and draw our conclusions about the candidates from a variety of things.
No, race is a factor and to act like it isn't is to either be in total denial - or dumber than a box of rocks. Which is it for you?
-
Hmmm.
[Read the article: Guatemala's nutrition lottery]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, I'm not sure if the study was ethical or not. The article doesn't get into the details about it. However, I see nothing wrong with trying to discern how good or bad nutrition plays a role in preparing people to learn and/or make economic contributions to the community.
I also think that human beings are motivated by different things, or not motivated. Nutrition is but one of those variables that go into the mix that determines a person's ability to work, be healthy, etc.
-
Why Are The Pundits Angry?
[Read the article: Clinton goes straight back to stumping after loss]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What the hell do the pundits have to be angry about with Hillary Clinton? AFter all, they cooked up this horserace between Clinton and Obama, and deliberately ignore John Edwards just in case his message might actually appeal to Democrats out here. And now they are pissed off at her? Gee, why? You created the mess, so stop complaining about it.
-
Stop the Analytical Madness Already!
[Read the article: Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's the deal:
1. Bill Clinton needs to take a chill pill because the guy just can't help himself. He's a political animal, and he's probably not the best person to have out front of his wife's campaign. Spouses are not objective. And because he is the former President, he needs to show a little class.
2. The Clintons are out to win, and we pity the fool that tries to get in the way! They play for keeps, have been put through hell and back, and yes, politics is a contact sport, and if you can't stand the heat yadda...yadda...yadda.
3. The media has blown much of this out of portion - IMAGINE!
The media wanted this fight, this horserace, and now that they've gotten it, they want to carp and whine and criticize.
They didn't quit until they knocked Edwards out of it, right down to ignoring his 2nd place finish in Iowa. They wanted Clinton and Obama and that's exactly what they have.
4. The guy is black. Is that lost on the media or anyone else? Hell, no! John Edwards has a nice head of hair. McCain has a lump on his cheek. Romney is so polished that a person probably leaves smudged fingerprints on his jacket when they touch him. And we've also noticed that Hillary wears lipstick and earrings so she is female. Obama is a black candidate! Geesh. Everybody stop acting like we don't notice.
5. The majority of voters in South Carolina Democratic party are African-American. We acknowledge that. So what? They wanted to vote for Obama. Fine. We can understand on many different levels why they would. The majority of Democratic voters in New Hampshire are white and more liberal than Iowans. We understand why they would vote for Hillary too.
6. Obama's campaign was reportedly strong-arming casino workers in Nevada, deliberately distributing wrong information to Hispanic voters about how caucus worked, and reportedly harrassing people when they were asked to stop bothering them at work. Were was the indignant statement from the Man himself about the conduct of his own people?
7. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carlina, separately and collectively, hardly tell the tale of how or why or anything else going on in this country with respect to the Democratic primary. And two of those were caucuses, not voters going to the polls.
8. Large turnout in Iowa, especially first-time caucus goers, benefitted Obama. Same in South Carolina. The Clintons need to expand their voter file and run a better GOTV program.
9. The polling doesn't include younger voters with cell phones in their sample, who are most likely to consider Obama. The polling sample would probably not include first-time voters/caucus goers either, or recently registered voters. That could easily explain the pundits missing their mark in South Carolina with respect to Obama's point spread.
Summary: No, Obama can't behave badly in Nevada and then chastise the Clintons for behaving badly in South Carolina. Like his low road is somehow higher than their low road.