Letters to the Editor
Dmagnificent
Published Letters: 151 Editor's Choice: 6
-
"Potent putdown"?
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow, this may be the most biased article yet from Salon and that is saying a LOT.
Shapiro actually referred to such a clearly rehearsed, poorly thought out and horribly delivered line as a "potent putdown."
Apparently he was so amused by this lame attack that he completely and totally failed to notice that the democratic audience in Texas BOOED her roundly for the line. The line was not at all successful. Every other article I have read about the debate asked whether her moment at the end made up for the botched attack. Then add her lifting an Edwards debate line almost verbatim and she has two glaring negatives against her one "Texas-size" moment, which was just as rehearsed as the Xerox line. She now officially rivals Bush in faking emotional moments.
She stayed married to a serial womanizer. That is what she is staking her campaign on now. Hillary Clinton knew about Flowers and Jones and probably many more and stayed with him. She wasn't just "standing by her man" as she herself said. No, his infidelity was just another tool for her to use to further her own goals. Anyone who was swayed by her shameless remarks has swallowed the Kool-Aid.
It is time for Hillary Clinton to swallow her pride and step her phony, sludge-spewing self aside.
-
Playing the Victim
[Read the article: A few debate thoughts]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Her "moment" at the end was no less rehearsed than her lame Xerox line. It seems there is no depth she won't sink to to win.
She has run a shameful, racist campaign. She has flung mud and lies with Rovian glee. She invented a fake controversy, held a conference call about the fake controversy and then lied to the press about having any involvement in the fake controversy. It didn't play, so she tried to use it as a one-liner and it blew up in her face.
And then she sank even lower. I do believe that we have witnessed a historic low in Presidential politics. Forget the flight suit with its stuffed codpiece. Forget selling picture of Bush on AF One on 9/11 to the biggest Republican donors. Forget Watergate. Tonight, we bottomed out.
Everyone knows my husband got a blowjob and I stayed with him, vote for me. Forget my war vote, my Kyl-Lieberman vote, my botched Cheneyesque attempt to reform health care from the White House before (a debacle that played a large part in the Republican Revolution in 1994), forget my mudslinging. Forget all that, my husband cheated on me. Poor, poor me. Vote for poor, poor me.
-
"A Princeton Historian"
[Read the article: Is Obama playing the race card?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Once again Salon bends over backwards to prop up Hillary. This man was NOT writing from the perspective of a historian. He was writing as a Clinton apologist.
This article cites no facts to back up the ludicrous claim, but attempts to legitimize the opinions by highlighting the writer's day job. Clinton Backers are getting increasingly desperate and sounding increasingly Orwellian as they try to throw the "kitchen sink" at Obama.
Clinton's people admitted their stategy, by gleefully denying it, of getting Obama branded as the "black candidate" in order to marginalize him.
The Clinton Flying Monkeys™ are attempting to re-write recent history ala Bush's ever shifting motivations for the invasion of Iraq. This is just the latest such attempt. The New Republic should issue an apology for printing it and Salon should be ashamed for reporting such a racist diatribe as legitimate news.
-
Not about race, all about the district
[Read the article: John Lewis endorses Obama ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]John Lewis is not "jumping on the bandwagon". He is making a decision for political survival.
His district voted overwhelmingly for Obama and has been quite vocal in calling for Lewis to follow their lead at the convention. The tipping point for Lewis was most likely the announcement that he was being challenged in the primary this summer by Markel Hutchins, a popular young minister from the district.
Lewis is a true hero of the civil rights movement of the 60's, but his support of Hillary, against the wishes of his constituency, had them basically asking "What has he done for us lately?" Lewis had to switch to Obama in order to prove that he wasn't just a relic from a bygone age, long past relevancy. Lewis had to prove that he matters NOW if he wanted a shot at keeping his office. While they will never forget the service that Lewis and men like him performed for black Americans and for America in general, his endorsement of Clinton raised the question of whether he has, sadly, just become another entrenched Washington politician, unconcerned with the desires of the people who sent him there.
Like it or not, Obama is moving people. He is connecting with people on a fundamental level. Obama is giving the disenfranchised hope of a brighter future. With a strong challenger in the district's primary, Lewis had to show that he was more than a hero of the past. He had to show his constituents (and it is they, not Bill or Hillary or their backers to whom his allegiance should lie) that he is going to be a part of the future.
It is almost unheard of for an incumbent not on his/her way to jail to lose a primary. But powerful movements defy traditional political logic. I believe, and I believe that John Lewis believes, that he was in grave danger of losing the primary if he stood in the way of Obama, thus in the way of the hopes and dreams of the people who elected him.
He did what he had to do.