Letters to the Editor
ShawnWM
Published Letters: 1029 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Sorry - Not a Republican
[Read the article: Quarter of Clinton supporters would vote McCain over Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sure the uber-left and Obama kool-aid crowd will say otherwise of course, it's always always somebody elses fault when they foist a candidate that appeals to less than 20% of the voting electorate. That's been true for 30 years. But the fact is I've been a Democrat my entire life. And so I say to the Kool-Aid crowd this:
- No "true Democrat" would ever have stood behind the race-baiting the Obama campaign did in South Carolina - which is what gave him his momentum, remember? Remember the race-baiting his campaign denied and then later admitted when a four page memo was found in the internet; I told you people there'd be blowback for that and his other ratty campaignings and I was right.
- No "true Democrat" would have stood by and cheered while the Obama campaign circulated flyers right out of the Republicans anti-universal healthcare playbook - even the figures in the flyer hadn't changed.
- No "true Democrat would ignore the fact that despite Obama's fast rise to fame , the poor he was supposed to be fighting for in his very own district were worse off than ever when he finally departed for greener pastures - for himself that is.
- No "true Democrat" would be more interested in "punishing Hillary" then picking the most viable candidate.
- No "true Democrat" would be endorsing a guy who was shooting his mouth off (again) in a foreign country laughing about how he was tricking all those little people again.
- No "true Democrat" would have circulated the full laundry list of debunked "scandals" that even Ken Starr hung up in the end.
So please please don't lecture me or any of us about "true Democrats". You know nothing of it.
I'm not voting for Obama because he simply is a phoney, a crook and because his actually RECORD of bringing about positive change for people is simply non-existant.
The kool-aide drinkers can rationalize it however they want. Frankly my dear...
-
Oh, and add to that one more thing:
[Read the article: Quarter of Clinton supporters would vote McCain over Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No "True Democrat" would be more interested in promoting himself, knowing he had no experience, no positive record of accomplishment of any measure and running off in the limo than in waiting a few years when he actually had a chance.
-
Er, No he isn't.
[Read the article: Quarter of Clinton supporters would vote McCain over Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please, give me a break!!!! McCain is parroting all the Neo-Con lines, including supporting "Rapture Ready" fundamentalists.
A patent lie. He's done no such thing. In fact he's been specific not to . First of all with Obama as his opponent he doesn't need to because he won't have to fight for independents.
Second, with the nomination now sealed up he can focus fully on the general election: namely national security which is Obama's weakest link. He doesn't need to pander to the radical right anymore, he never won them over anyway and that actually HELPS him in a general.
My biggest reservation voting for McCain is those preposterous plutocratic tax cuts; but I don't believe Obama would turn them off either. After all what he's said and what he's done historically have been dramatically different; particularly when it comes to standing up to what the GOP wants.
-
@tompayne
[Read the article: Quarter of Clinton supporters would vote McCain over Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not even going to dignify that vulgar tripe of yours by responding to it. Neither will the rest of the country so probably best to get used to it. You've had your heyday and it's over.
-
Don't ya just love Salon's objectivity in this primary?
[Read the article: Huckabee concedes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everything you need to know to figure out why Obama will lose in a landslide is RIGHT HERE from CNN.com and has been for at least six weeks.
Meanwhile, 64 percent of Hispanics backed Clinton, while 32 percent went for Obama.
Early exit polls indicate a distinct "age gap" in both states.
Obama appeals most strongly to younger voters while older voters favor Clinton. Among Ohio Democratic primary voters aged 17 to 29, 65 percent went for Obama, and 34 percent went for Clinton. Among those age 60 and older, Clinton leads Obama 67-31 percent.
The most growing and most reliable voters in the country don't back Obama. (Does no one at all here a "Warning Dr. Smith" light going off?) But yet Salon's done all they could to prop this empty suit and ensure his primary victory.
Well, I hope you're happy, editors. You'll have another eight years of disgruntled lefties shelling out for hand-wringing subscriptions and to hell with what happens to the country.
-
Both sides are equally ignorant.
[Read the article: Exit polling suggests Texan voters are anti-trade]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The great exodus of jobs for Americans has gone to ASIA which has nothing AT ALL to do with NAFTA.
For Godsakes people, just once, think critically instead of drinking kool-aide.
-
So Clinton has won Ohio and the popular vote in Texas at least if not all of TX (too soon to call at this time)
[Read the article: Clinton wins Ohio]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Something tells me we'll now hear deafening silence from the Obamateur's about the "will of the people" and instead want to lean on skewed undemocratic caucuses.
Just watch.
-
Glenn, get a grip
[Read the article: What Howard Kurtz means by "media scrutiny"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]you get wilder-eyed all the time. Kurtz is a rightwinger now? LOL.
No,the fact is that Obama DID get off with a rubber softball while Mrs. Clinton was getting pitched iron. It obviously wasn't going to last past the primary.
-
Let me guess...
[Read the article: Rhode Island goes to Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With RI, Ohio, and at least the popular vote in Texas going to Hillary, suddenly the Obamateur's won't be interested in the democratic "will of the people" anymore. (at least not so long as the "will of the people" includes Michigan, Ohio, the Texas primary and Florida, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Mass, Rhode Island, Arizona, etc).
-
Let me guess...
[Read the article: The numbers crunch Hillary in Texas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With Clinton now clearly winning the primary in Ohio and Rhode Island, and at least the popular vote in Texas, suddenly both the Obamateur's and their Republican allies in the MSM, will instantly lose interest in the "will of the people" and instead want to rely on undemocratic caucuses, right?
-
@ethics_professor
[Read the article: Clinton wins Ohio]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are right, but Obama's spin doctors are talented. Heard a piece on NPR yesterday about his PR firm--very corporate and political. I'm sure they're already spinning...
No doubt. He's got the best spin-doctors and apologists Republican money can buy, or loan or do as a favor or whatever it is.
However everything one needs to know about why he'll lose in a landslide is readily apparent in Texas: the Latinos and elderly went OVERWHELMINGLY for Clinton and they are the most reliable voters of all.