Letters to the Editor
Scientician
Published Letters: 525 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Alex116:
[Read the article: Obama shows that dismissing slimy right-wing attacks is not difficult]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In 1992, Bill Clinton was the aggressor. He threw punches (some low blows) before he was punched. He knew what was coming and didn't wait. Throughout the 90's he put many republicans in body bags. He learned from Dukakis. Carville used to say that it's hard for someone to hit you if you have your fist in their face. But Obama has boxed himself in by saying he's moving beyond that kind of politics. As as someone who has only voted for one republican in my life (Sen. Gordon Smith), that worries me. You can't constantly respond. It drains your campaign. Do you remember the fall of 2004? You could feel kerry sinking. And most americans don't read about the details the way we do. So it slowly sinks in.
While I am no big detractor of what Bill Clinton achieved, I'd note with no snark intended that Obama has already parried Bill Clinton himself effectively in this very race.
I think what's remarkable here is the two most talented Democratic politicians in our lifetimes have gone toe to toe (one through his wife as a proxy of sorts) and Obama has come out on top.
While the Clintons attacks are nowhere near the type of vile crap the right will throw out (whatever Obama fans may think in the heat of the moment, Hillary's campaign has not been even a fraction as dirty as what the right does routinely), I do think it is a signficant achievement for Obama.
Keep in mind, he came from behind to win this thing. He was nowhere near equal in stature to Hillary when the race started and she has run a major campaign absent a "Dean scream" gaffe or something. He just ate away at her lead week by week until he was on top.
I'm personally eating crow on this one because last fall it looked to me like he was doomed and not really in it to win.
Beyond all that, I'm not opposed to Hillary per se, but the problem with the Clinton approach is that it only works as a rear-guard orderly retreat, not the vanguard of a new progressive era. Bill Clinton's time in the Presidency was the Democratic party's Vietnam. We won every battle and still lost the war. I don't blame the Clintons for the loss of Congress in 1994, but they didn't take it back or turn the nation around and beat back conservativism.
-
Ondellette:
[Read the article: Obama shows that dismissing slimy right-wing attacks is not difficult]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]William Kristol sounds like an outed Wormtongue this morning.
Awesome. Though I'm biased as a huge Tolkien fan.
Alex116: Is it really necessary to title every post "get real" stop insulting us please. Everyone is responding to you substantively. Disagree if you wish, people have put as much thought into these positions as you have. We're very "real" and implying otherwise is not conducive to convincing anyone of your position.
To all: Similar note applies to anyone who likes to use "wake up" - (we're likely all guitly occasionally of this snipe) - it only puts your opponents back up. Even those who really are asleep at the metaphoric wheel don't take kindly to being rudely awakened.
-
kaweahdave:
[Read the article: Obama shows that dismissing slimy right-wing attacks is not difficult]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While the Dems in 2006 did a great job standing up to the right-wing attack machine, Obama's candidacy is different. As an African American man with a Kenyan father and a Muslim family background, his candidacy unfortunately is ripe for racist and xenophobic attacks.
The RWNM was able to do the following in 2000 and 2004:
a) turn a telegenic and affable moderate southern senator with a visionary legislative record into a lying bore who was substantively identical to a dullard fake cowboy patrician from texas.
b) turn a vietnam-volunteer war hero with an impressive prosecutorial and investigative legislative record into a pandering coward and phony
Both of these men were white, christian males with decent family lives, moderate election platforms and no scandals worth mentioning.
So for me, I'm done worrying about who is "easier" to attack from the perspective of the attack machine. They can destroy any Democrat with any record if they are not properly countered. Neither Hillary, Obama, Edwards nor even Richardson would be somehow immune to their attacks.
It's all in the response. Bill Clinton has a litany of vulnerabilities to attack, mostly along the lines of being a philanderer, and yet he beat them. So it can be done, and I think the response is more important than the particulars of the person involved or the line of attack.
It simply doesn't matter to the right who we nominate, all that changes is the specific charges levied or the "incidents" they harp on to push their framing. Barely anyone on the right knew who Kerry was in March 2004, yet by the end of 2004 he was viscerally loathed.
However much they hate Hillary now, they will hate Obama with equal fervour come November. That's what they do, they're very good at it as they've been practicing this art since Nixon.
Whether that hatred extends beyond their 20-30% of the populace into the persuadable 30% depends purely on Obama's acumen. So far so good on that front IMO.
-
"Get Real" - Alex116
[Read the article: Obama shows that dismissing slimy right-wing attacks is not difficult]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please keep titling your posts that way so I can scroll past them quickly. It was annoying at first, but now it's a great way to know that your radio is stuck on "transmit."
-
Paul Dirks:
[Read the article: John King with Mike McConnell: Rare journalistic honesty]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That is a brilliant insight. I'm tempted to make some kind of Balky voiced "In Soviet-Russia, hamburger eats people!" reversal joke, but as well this insight lends itself to bumper stickers:
"I'd rather the government own corporations than the corporations owning the government"
Or what was that line
"Under communism, it's dog eat dog. Under capitalism, it's the reverse."