Letters to the Editor
-
Most people support Obama and are psychotic with hatred of Hillary
I say it again: WHY DOESN'T OBAMA STOP THIS TOTALLY BEYOND THE PALE HATRED OF HIS SUPPORTERS? WHEN IS HE ACTUALLY GOING TO UNITE ANYONE??????
-
"Apparently, anonymous, you are both a coward (for writing as anonymous)..."
Just a reminder, Philly-whatever-your-fake-name-is, that you're anonymous, too.
And, no, I'm not the Anonymous you were attempting to insult. I'm another Anonymous. Just like you.
-
SAD BUT TRUE!
Tom Tomorrow has UNERRINGLY pointed out the major problem facing the Democrats for 2008. LUCKILY, it is the SAME PROBLEM facing the republicans. WHAT the Democrats have to do is, despite who the two candidates from either party are, CONSTANTLY REMIND THE AMERICAN VOTER OF the FACT that EIGHT DISASTROUS YEARS of Bush and republican governance have left America, WEAKER, OVERTAXED, DEFICIT, POORER, HATED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, PARANOID, MEAN and MENDACIOUS in the extreme, so why EVEN CONSIDER giving the fudge-pachyderms of the G(rotesque) O(bstreperous) P(ederast) republican party ANOTHER CHANCE? NO WAY IN HELL!!!!!
-
the secret ballot is the problem.
if voters had to declare their vote,and have a stain daubed on their hand to identify their pick for a long time, the winners could pick the losers off the streets with the patriot act, gas 'em, and thereafter have peace and harmony. can't think why the president hasn't thought of this. hmm, actually, maybe he has. phone tapping is as good as a stain.
harmony is hard to get, because the goal is selfish: "let me be president." if the goal was "what should we, as a nation do", a national referendum would settle it effectively. that's why politicians think "vote for me" is just enough change. they're not there for you and me, they're there for themselves.
obama isn't going to change anything, except the face on the evening news. if you want real change, the people have to stand up and change the system.
-
the contested primary is good news
I wish that there was more policy difference between Obama and Clinton. I wish that Edwards had lasted a bit longer.
But at the end of the day, the reason this thing is being fought so hard is because the Democrat has a great chance of winning in November. The primary for the 2004 election was not as hard fought, largely because it was perceived that the election would be a tough one for a Democrat. Kerry ended up doing much better than anyone expected at the beginning of the primary season. He lost, but Bush won by the narrowest margin of any re-elected incumbent. But the reason the primary was soft was that people thought that the Democrat would be a longshot. This time it's different.
And that's good, because all the Democrats are much better than all the Republican. They are a far cry from perfect, but they are better. Any of them is would be a step on the road to sanity. Maybe the first step so that in ten or twenty years, our policies might be as sane as the ones in say, Australia or Canada. That's progress.
McCain appears to be the only Republican with a chance, but first he has to get the nomination, and then he has to stay popular when people learn what he actually stands for. And even if he does that, it's a coin flip.
Barring something unexpected, the winner of the Democrat primary has a very good chance of being elected president. And that's good. But it means that they will fight hard in the primary. Incidentally, the fact that the current Democrat candidates have put together passionate, committed followings is also a good sign, not a bad sign.
A soft primary united around a candidate that nobody feels very strongly about would not be preferable.
-
I'm going to let you Democrats in on a little secret.
Obama is the Democratic candidate that has the GOP running scared. Note that I said GOP, not Republicans. Why? Because he's the one Democrat that many Republicans would be willing to vote for.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but I'd vote for Obama before I'd vote for Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani or McCain. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was the same with all the supporters of the other Republican candidates.
And the Republican Party Leaders know it.
-
RIGHT ON!
I just spent the weekend serving as devil's advocate in discussions between my husband (Clinton supporter) and our daughter and her husband (Obama supporters). Fortunately for my sanity, another daughter wasn't present. She's an Edwards supporter.
So, when I clicked on the Tom Tomorrow cartoon today, I mentally said "right on" and felt vindicated in my attempts to educate fellow Democrats on the pros and cons of each campaign and each candidate--cautioning them to look beyond the speeches and try to get the "back story" which might help explain why this primary has deteriorated into ugliness. In fact, the last missive I sent out to friends and family members was titled "Democrats eat their own." This seems to be a habit we can't overcome.
None of the candidates is perfect. All have flaws. There are questionable supporters and handlers. This is especially true with regard to the DLC and the DNC. If anyone thinks that ugly battle is behind us, they're kidding themselves. This race is for more than the presidency. It's about power on many levels.
And that's why I proudly declare myself to be UNDECIDED! On Super Tuesday, unfortunately I'll have to hold my nose and vote for one of them and hope they "come together" after the primary. Do I think that will happen? No way! This race has been too nasty (Note to the candidates: WE'RE SICK OF IT!) and the candidates/campaigns have fallen into the same cesspool Democrats usually do---cannibalizing their own instead of planning for a joint effort to win the highest office in the land and save us (if that's possible) from more of the Bush era insanity.
-
Obama vs. McCain, part 2...
Obama OR McCain? I've heard that a lot from Obama supporters, and that ranks as the most politically idiotic statement I hear. You'd actually vote for McCain, a very far right-wing candidate who has vowed to keep us in Iraq "for 100 years, if necessary," just to keep your vote from Hillary? I'm befuddled by that.
I support Hillary, but if Obama's the candidate, I'll back him. Hillary and Obama's position on most things is nearly identical. McCain is about 180 degrees opposed. He wants to keep Bush's tax cuts.
I'll give this to you: he seems to be a nicer guy than anybody else in the Republican field. Is that what decides you? You don't really understand politics, do you?
Well, if you're truly interested in dissecting my thought process on how I came to liking both Obama and McCain, whom have very different opinions on several keys issues, it's important to start with a confession... I'm not a Democrat, nor am I a Republican. The tone of your last question, however, belies a lack of actual interest in understanding my point of view, but I'll try anyway.
Over the past year I've regularly watched debates and speeches, but have been generally free from the ravages of political commercials. Regularly, I would follow up with a reasonable amount of fact-checking. ( Have to love http://www.factcheck.org )
Follow that site long enough, and a pattern emerges. While no candidate has been free of making factually incorrect statements, some candidates have had extreme difficulty with the truth, repeatedly citing the same incorrect statistics or misrepresentations ( Rudy and Romney come to mind ). Of the three democratic candidates, Edwards has had the most difficult time landing near the truth (particularly when considered against the context of how much coverage he's actually had - which is another issue entirely) while Hillary and Obama have generally been close to the Mark. On the Republican side it had pretty much just been McCain and Ron Paul being arguably sincere and more or less honest.
Another thing I've been looking carefully toward is which candidates can work best with the other party - on both sides you really only have one candidate. Edwards and Clinton on the Democratic side really both seem to be largely angry votes by people who want to 'punch Republicans in the mouth' for the way Washington has been run over the past seven years. As much as the Republican party probably deserves such a public rebuke as being followed by another Clinton; it will do nothing to ease the partisanship already present in Washington - and I reject that. I'm looking for someone much more aspirational.
It was really the last few weeks, however, that ended any chance I would vote for Hillary in the general election. Having stated a profound dislike for dishonesty and the inability to avoid the partisan politics of the past 15 years, her campaign has taking a dark and ugly turn I can not support...
Her criticism of Obama's answer to his 'weakest point' during the Nevada debate was the first big hit in my opinion. He gave an honest, thoughtful and humorous answer; both her and Edwards gave the standard job-interview garbage we're used to hearing.
Her attempt to paint Obama as a Reagan lover were particularly atrocious, and a second solid strike against her. I had listened to Obama's interview, and knew instantly what he meant - he had clearly been praising Reagan as a 'transformative figure' along side JFK, and in no way endorsing Reagan's views on issues. I resent that I had to listen to two days of absurd news coverage over whether it was Hillary or Obama who 'liked Reagan more', and she's the one that touched it off.
The whole ugly race-related stuff that started in Nevada, carried through to South Carolina and ended with Bill Clinton trying to marginalize Obama as 'the black candidate' was really the last straw. If the Clintons can't avoid resorting to demonizing and trying to trivialize someone in their own party, what hope is there that they can avoid giving us another 4 years of intense red state, blue state political division? None.
As for McCain's 100-year comment, I'll admit that when taken out of context like you have done, it's not the most politically sensible thing to say - and that's partly why I like McCain, even though I often disagree with him on policy. McCain is quick to frame your citation in the context of our bases in South Korea, Japan and Germany (left over from World War II and the Korean War). He also points out his belief that it's not the US presence that most Americans oppose, it's the costs and deaths. Needless to say, Americans generally aren't up in arms over our bases in South Korea, Japan and Germany... so in my opinion it's a reasonable assertion to make even if I would rather see troops come home.
As I stated before though, I'm mostly interested in changing the tone of Washington, and I think both Obama and McCain are capable of doing that to differing degrees. If I never hear political discussion devolve into attacks and code-words again, it will be too soon. For reference, attacks and code-words are things like:
"...ranks as the most politically idiotic statement I hear."
"...far right-wing candidate..."
and my favorite...
"You don't really understand politics, do you?"