Letters to the Editor
Renegade Iconoclast
Published Letters: 660 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Go for it KStone
[Read the article: Argus Leader endorses Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Continue to make a fool of yourself. Being dismissive of everything I say, and refusing to engage on the very clear facts definitely exposes someone's mendacity. You can't argue (and haven't) with a single thing I said on the issue, the best you can do is attack me and pretend that the transcript doesn't exist. Best of luck with that.
-
Here's KStone exposing my mendacity
[Read the article: Argus Leader endorses Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She wasn't giving examples of Party unity. She gave two factual examples in which the primaries continued into June to counter the notion, that party unity could be hurt MERELY BY THE LITERAL FACT of primaries continuing into, this case, June. In terms of BC, you can't refute her point so you are using the "effectively" spin and it's lame. In terms of RFK, the point was the primary going into June and not his assassination and your subsequent take on it's effect on Party unity.
The fact that she wasn't giving examples of party unity is nearly my whole point. That was the question! Her answer was dumb, ill-conceived, and obviously one of those scripted talking points that had zero relevance to the question she was asked.
Very much like the way that Bush, every time he's asked about the run-up to the Iraq war, says, "Well, look at what happened on September 11th!"
-
What a waste of money
[Read the article: Ferraro wants study on sexism, racism in campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do sexism and racism still exist in America? Is the media biased? Inquiring minds want to know!
-
Karen and her voter's guide
[Read the article: The fight over Florida and Michigan]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So the hell what if the MI voter's guide spells out what uncommitted means. We all know what it means. In the normal contests, where everyones' name was on the ballot, uncommitted didn't win a single delegate. In MI, it won about 40% of the delegates.
The voters who voted uncommitted were voting against Clinton. They certainly weren't voting against Kucinich. A significant majority doubtless were voting for Obama by selecting uncommitted, because he wasn't on the ballot.
Which means the voice of the people only matters to Hillary if those people are voicing their preference for Hillary. Otherwise, it suddenly becomes all about the rules, and if 200k+ peoples' voices aren't heard, well tough shit.
-
What a laugh, damnthatxanadu
[Read the article: Ferraro wants study on sexism, racism in campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Most importantly, Ferraro makes an incredibly important point about Reagan Democrats and you, Alex just pooh pooh with out a thought. And you do political analysis, Alex? I think you need to go back to school.
There's no such thing as a Reagan Democrat. The words are mutually exclusive. Anyone who voted for Reagan, and continues to think that was somehow a good thing, is not a Democrat. They're a very confused right-winger. Which I suspect you are too.
-
Frist should just talk to Shawn and lolcait
[Read the article: Frist: "Democrats win landslide victory"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because they've got special precognitive powers that lead them to conclude that Barack can't possibly win this fall.
-
Well, come November
[Read the article: Frist: "Democrats win landslide victory"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope that the landslide doesn't cause anyone to cry on shoulder and give him AIDS.
-
Joan
[Read the article: Scott McClellan: The beatings continue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, I want you to know, I'm not a Joan Walsh hater. Far from it. Salon's coverage of Bush and his war over the years probably kept me sane. Glenn Greenwald was an inspired choice (a man with ten times the class and intellect of Bob Somerby, IMO). I canceled my subscription over Salon's anti-Israel bias. I likely would have canceled over your anti-Obama bias. Which brings me to my point.
Are you really still holding out hope that Clinton can win? Do you not see the substantial problems she would have with the electorate, if party insiders are seen as nullifying the vote? Isn't that her only path to victory now?
At what point do you, Joan Walsh, stop bashing the nominee for stuff that Clinton says, and get on with getting him elected?
-
@rupert_c
[Read the article: Scott McClellan: The beatings continue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hilarious! I have to admit I'm a sucker for (good) geek humor. I'm a professional computer programmer, so let's see if we can flesh out your code a little.
while election
{
unrelated_story;
obama_race;
clinton_gender;
}
Function unrelated_story
{
something_obamas_parrot_said;
random_internet_trolls_are_mean;
opposite_of_what_everyone_else_said;
}
-
Speaking of fanning flames
[Read the article: Scott McClellan: The beatings continue]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey, what's this we got here? Did Obama write Joan's blog post this time?
-
@Pollyanna2
[Read the article: Big weekend news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, if I get your argument, "If you can't stand the heat...," pretty much sums it up, right? And all the finger pointing is childish, I also gathered.
Is it also childish to suggest that a Democrat should comport herself with a higher ethic than a Republican? And do Obama supporters have a monopoly on finger pointing?
The decision yesterday was relatively fair. Clinton retained her lead in both states. MI and FL were sanctioned, as is appropriate under the rules. Had they not been, states might well have begun a race backwards through the calendar, leading to a first primary in June of the year before the election.
MI Obama voters were given a reasonable compromise, given that their candidate wasn't on the ballot, and their write-in votes were simply discarded. Who knows how many of them stayed home once they knew it wouldn't count? Why bother showing up when your guy's name isn't even on the screen?
Clinton still carried the delegation, but didn't manage to change the state into winner-take-all as she'd hoped. Given her embarrassing performance against the unnamed Democrat, not many folks would find that position very reasonable, especially when so cynically couched in the language of voter enfranchisement.
All of this was explained pretty well yesterday if you watched the proceedings, and didn't simply sit in seething anger and hate throughout. Given the incredibly poor behavior of the Clinton supporters yesterday, I do admit to finding it ironic to be stereotyped as childish.
Let's just beat McCain.