Letters to the Editor
Dmagnificent
Published Letters: 124 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Carville
[Read the article: What did Mickey Kantor really say?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I usually avoid responding to others in the letter section, but lolcait's comments are unacceptable.
There are just reason's for disliking Carville now despite having liked him before. In the 90's, Carville was defending the Clintons from "the vast right wing conspiracy", AKA the Arkansas Project. He was obnoxious and over the top then, but he almost had to be to be heard over the right-wing nutjobs screaming about every rumor they created about the Clintons.
Carville today is calling Bill Richardson "Judas" for backing the candidate that he believed best for the country. Richardson had said beforehand that the superdelegates should align behind whomever was winning after the Texas primary. He did that himself about a week afterwards. He talked about what respect he had for the Clintons and how much he appreciated what they had done for him, but concluded that Obama was what is in our country's best interest. And for that, he was called Judas, not even Benedict Arnold, but Judas who sold out the son of God (or if you prefer a secularized take, his best friend- although I contend that Judas was chosen precisely because of whom he sold out) for 30 pieces of silver.
Lolcait talks about cults forcing people into an us versus them mentality. There is much more to cults than just loyalty. And by lolcait's definition, Carville seems to be a confirmed cultist. He isn't. He is an overzealous Clinton supporter. The problem with many Clinton supporters is that they just can't see a diiference between the using the tactics that they had to use in the 90's against a group of right wind lunatcs who were constantly inventing lies to spread about the Clintons and using those tactics against a fellow democrat in a primary race in which the Republican candidate has already been decided.
The scorched earth tactics of the Hillary team have turned a lot of former supporters off, not blind loyalty to Obama. I totally disagree with Obama on some issues. But he is not running a campaign designed to make Hillary unelectable if he can't be. Perhaps Hillary could have been a good president, but there is no way for that to happen now. She can't get the nomination without turning off huge voter blocs that the democrats can't win without. Attacking people for doing what is best for the party and the nation instead of sticking with someone out of blind loyalty is why some of us dislike James Carville now, not simply because he backs Hillary instead of Obama.
-
What a joke Salon has become
[Read the article: A pivotal day for the Democrats?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More pointless regurgitation of Clinton talking points from Salon. What a shock!
If Clinton gets handed the nomination by a bunch of white Washington insiders, this country could very well be facing revolution. Not anger. Not protests. Not riots. Genuine, honest-to-God revolution.
Any halfway intelligent person knows that the only reason that Obama has slipped in the polls is that he is now getting hit from both sides. McCain isn't attacking Hillary. Once she and her super-sized ego get put in their proper place, Obama's stock will skyrocket.
I am so tired of the flimsy, illogical arguments that are constantly being made in defense of Clinton's scorched earth campaign. Of course Obama has fallen some since early Spring. Clinton has been dragging his name through the mud while McCain beat on him.
And Obama has kept above the fray. He has criticized Clinton policies and votes, but hasn't attacked her on Whitewater, Travelgate, or any of the 10,000 other things that the Republicans will happily remind voters of this Fall. The Republicans know that if they tried to run the kind of campaign against Obama that they would against Clinton, it would backfire. The biggest threat to the Democratic Party right now is Hillary Clinton.
The Republicans spent hundreds of thousands of dollars running anti-Obama ads in a congressional special election in Louisiana. They repeatedly tied the Democratic candidate to Obama in ads. What happened? The Republicans lost the seat, which they had held for over 30 years.
Hillary is a bad joke on the Democratic Party, just as Salon is now a bad joke on the people who used to count on it when it was tearing apart the obvious lies of the Bush team. Now it just spreads the obvious lies of the Clinton team. Yes, folks, Salon is now Fair and Balanced.
-
We are already there
[Read the article: The media, the right and 1988: Endless deja vu]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary Cinton has been using "the tactics that the GOP perdected in 1988" since she lost the lead. It has cut into Obama's lead, but not to level that one would expect given that Obama is constantly being attacked by McCain and slandered by Clinton. Obama is different.
Al Gore and John Kerry were both highly intelligent and, if anything, overqualified to be President. They lacked the political charisma to overcome the smear campaigns. Hillary Clinton is far more lacking in political charisma than either of those great men. All she can do is smear.
The problem is that her smears, which go much further than the Republicans will dare in the fall, aren't having as much of an impact as they did before. They just aren't sticking to Obama like they did to Gore and Kerry. If the most racist campaign since Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat run couldn't tear Obama down, then nothing the Republicans will do can.
Hillary on the other hand is an easy target. Her negatives are so high and she so energizes the Republican base that she would fall on her face if she manages to weasel out the nomination. And her response will be to go on the offensive and smear a was hero. Hmmm. Smear a war hero, where have we seen that before?