Letters to the Editor
-
And what has Hillary done in 8 years in the Senate?
I'm sorry but if you compare their records in the Senate he's substantially done as much as her and more than any one-term Senator I can name.
Now the press might make you think otherwise, the NYT which endorsed her likes to run stories about how he hasn't really done much and the Chicago newspapers kind of vacillate back and forth over praising him and then dissing him (whenever they feel like he's not giving them enough face time), but the fact of the matter is Barack Obama's actual Senate record shows a tremendous amount done for a freshman, 1-term Senator from Illinois. It also shows bi-partisanship. Working with Repbulicans on ethics reform and nuclear proliferation are not minor things.
-
@AKA Smith
Wait! Didn't we try that before in 2000 with the compassionate conservative still in office? The guy who promised us no nation building? That's right! George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of bipartisanship and promising not to interfere unnecessarily in the business of other nations. He's a Uniter, Not a Divider!
Naah. I don't buy that comparison. My opinion of Bush hasn't changed significantly since the first time I laid eyes on him. I immediately knew he was a corrupt imbecile with the unique combination of ignorance and hubris to cause a lot of damage. Obama, I get pretty much the opposite feeling. Sure, his legislative record is sparse. So this is all gut-feeling type of stuff, based more on how he's conducted his campaign, his life story and how he communicates it, and his general policy positions. He seems like he's got a great head on his shoulders, and has some very bright people involved with him. In some ways, the fact that he hasn't wallowed in Washington mire for decades could be a plus.
I think between him and, as you put it, the Triangulator, I'll go with him. With Hillary, you truly never can count on her, because trianguation is constantly shifting for the political objective. I think Obama has actual principles that trump politics, at least at times. With HIllary, I don't get that.
-
@Lolcait, etc.
We get it; really we do. You hate Barack Obama's fucking guts with the white-hot passion of a trillion suns. We are reminded of such with every single Salon article....even the comics. I don't know how a human being can maintain those levels of constant, seething bloodlust and intense rage every minute of every waking hour, but I'm not a psychologist, so I have no explanation. I've just never seen anything like it before.
-
@ paulpsd7
It's funny how gut feelings are. They are so completely individual. My gut feeling about Barack Obama is not nearly so positive as yours.
-
Needs treatment
lolcait has got some kind of obsessive Clinton driven psychosis.
-
I like how the Clinton backers, didn't challenge anything TT said
That is how you can tell a loser in an argument. When the loser never addresses what the winner said. Everything TT said has gone unopposed. I assume that the clinton backers agree by their silence.
-
I hear ya.
"Loser" is inscribed across their foreheads.
-
Its quite simple really:
Hillary's supporters are basically everything they accuse Obama supporters of being.
The are immature, petulant little crybaby cultists who alternate between accusing the other side of not being tough enough, and then whining about how the other side is too tough on their candidate.
Any criticism whatsoever of their candidate is met with the "Hater" label, which was pretty much how they met any criticism of their last candidate GW Bush before he became unpopular (Now they claim, along with most other Americans, to have not voted for him.)
Any straw that can be grasped, be it the Rezko deal (In which exhaustive investigation has found nothing untoward) or Obama's pastor is gripped with white knuckled rage as they proclaim proudly that if they don't get things there way they will vote for McCain, because evidently they actually don't give a flying fuck about the issues, they are only concerned with personalities and they just don't like Obama.
They accuse Obama supporters of being heavy on the name calling, while generally in the same posts using terms like "Obambi" or "Obamanation". Plus, in a reversion to their Neocon instincts, they slam commentators for either being "loony liberals" or "Latte liberals" where liberal is something of a swear word and being consistently on the wrong side of every argument for the last 200 years is a compliment.
Like we haven't haven't had enough of that shit from the damned economy wrecking retarded right over the last seven years.
-
This is not an endorsement of any human being.
Why is Lieberman whispering in the background.... what? a dung pile?
Poor Hilary, Barack, McCain, and Tom Tomorrow. who is the riff-raff?
News is a jumble mumble.
What an account of a Life!
A assay. A failure of Times.
No science, medicine, or health Theory can help figure our days?
In my opinion, heaven needs to be the prize to those who can listen.
Hearing the gibber is worst than hell? It sure makes a hell on Earth.
To endure a few minutes of political punditry noise is gnash of teeth.
Tom Tomorrow has an news-scat-digger, two upper, crap filled ear?
T.T. is exemplary? T.T. endorse Lieberman?
Tom Tomorrow aims for a unbiased, unspoiled, unadulterated, and scat-void assay account.
The T.T. comic strip tells it best when all Human Reason fails. When all that's left in the news-void is~a comic strip.
`A Lieberman last frame hint?
`A large dung pile in the field.
-
apologies. What can one do to ruin a reputation? I misspelled Hillary.
There are two 'l's' in Hillary. My friend has one 'l' in Michele. There is no "hell" in my friend.
Tom is a good digerati.
A politico is a trench digger.
Please bury the scat with a spade.
Before This Modern World technology~digerati,
all waste was laid in a compost pile for gardens.
-
"Every vote should count"?
I'm rather puzzled to hear so many people demanding that "every vote must count" in the primaries lately.
I've been voting in the primaries for more than twenty years, and this is the FIRST time that my vote could have actually made a difference. Of course it didn't make a difference; my first, second, and third candidates dropped out before the primary came, and my fourth pick didn't win. But at least in theory my vote COULD have mattered, and I got some calls from the campaigns of both candidates.
For every primary BEFORE this one, though, the candidate had already been picked long before I got to vote. My vote was an exercise in utter futility.
So why is it suddenly not okay for Florida and Michigan to undergo the vote-irrelevancy that so many of us late-primary voter have always faced?
The primary system is fucked. Something needs to be done about it.
That said, I thought it was a pretty funny cartoon. And I will admit that these constantly changing rationales by the Clinton campaign have become more than a little annoying. Do they think the voters are too stupid to notice the constant switcheroos?
I wonder if Tom Tomorrow reads comments here?