Letters to the Editor

• Since When is Telling the Truth "Attacking?"

  [Read the article: Obama talks hope, but not before attacking Clinton]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Good grief. Obama is laying out the choice. Since when did presenting the truth, and differentiating oneself from the competitor, become "attacking?"

  Barack Obama didn't support the war, and he didn't vote for war -- Hillary Clinton did

  Hillary Clinton spent 8 years as First Lady and thus has "White House experience" of a sort -- Barack Obama doesn't

  Barack Obama doesn't have the baggage of Whitewater and Lewinsky and the right-wing conservative conspiracy to take him down -- Hillary Clinton does

  Hillary Clinton has more experience in the U.S. Senate than Barack Obama -- but Barack Obama has more experience as an elected official than Hillary Clinton

  Barack is an African American man, had a Muslim father, lives abroad -- Hillary is a white woman, from Christian upbringing, who hasn't lived abroad

  Hillary has "35 years of experience" (aka, 35 years out of college), Barack, being younger, has less

  Alex, I think you're usually spot on, but I don't get why a candidate, differentiating himself or herself, is considered an "attack." You actually consider this going "hard after his opponent?" Seriously?

  Going hard is swiftboating, lying, personal attacks, distortions.

  These are not distortions or personal attacks.

  They're delineating the differences.

  What's he supposed to say to differentiate himself, if not that he didn't vote for and support some things that she did?

  And when she says "Obama's health care plan doesn't cover everyone, mine does" is that an attack? Is that "going hard?"

  Come on... enough trying to gin up a "fight" and controversy where there isn't one.

  Permalink Wednesday, February 6, 2008 09:18 AM

• Shhhh...Nobody Tell John McCain!! HAH!

  [Read the article: Mitt Romney suspends presidential campaign]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I just watched Romney's speech on CNN, and after CNN went to commercial, the first ad was a McCain attack ad about how Romney's no Ronald Reagan. (I'm in a Potomac Primary state).

  But shhhh....nobody tell crotchety old Mac Because maybe he'll keep spending his money and draining the coffers on pointless campaign ads against people who have dropped out!!!

  Permalink Thursday, February 7, 2008 10:21 AM

• Thank You Kate...

  [Read the article: What I really wanted to say to Chris Matthews]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  There IS no biological imperative for a woman to vote her gender. There is, however, an imperative a vote for the person who best represents your values and vision for America.

  For you -- and for me -- that's Barack Obama.

  Note to Kate AND Joan: There is NOT, however, any imperative for anyone with an iota of self-respect to appear on Hardball.

  P.S. People keep putting up the Condi Rice example, but how about making it even MORE frightening. What about Katherine Harris -- or, even better, Ann Coulter. You would have to put a GUN TO MY HEAD to get me to vote for Katherine Harris or Ann Coulter. I consider them an embarrassment to women, and chromosomes aside, they don't represent anything I believe in.

  Permalink Friday, February 8, 2008 06:24 AM

• Fairy Tale Time: Once Upon a Time...

  [Read the article: Quote of the day]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  there was a politician who was pathologically unable to tell the straight truth no matter what the situation...

  Sorry Bill, I'm not buying this particular lie about your campaign for Mrs. Bill Clinton.

  Permalink Friday, February 8, 2008 11:32 AM