Letters to the Editor
ShawnWM
Published Letters: 1029 Editor's Choice: 4
-
@KCM
[Read the article: Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I never understood the argument that Ralph Nader caused Al Gore's loss.
Then let me help explain it to you. What Sir Ralphie Ratfuck and his supporters (moronically insisting Gore=Bush much as they are moronically insisting Clinton-Bush now) did to us in New Hampshire alone would have made the Florida debacle irrelevant if they hadn't. 5 fkg electoral votes.
-
@Kovie
[Read the article: Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And yet it's ok to make fun of someone's last name because it sounds "funny".
Oh, the irony. Einstein darling, my references to Oh!-bama have to do with the excitement his adulators insist he promotes - these idiots who mistake the press and GOP deliberatgely holding fire on him and his abysmal record with a big national support movement. Because they know they can shoot him down in an afternoon once he becomes the Dem candidate.
Got more soap balloons for us to pop?
Bluntly I believe what you hear popping is the last of your brain cells. If God forbid Oh becomes our candidate McCain will win in a landslide. It'll be the experienced patriotic POW who can protect us versus the guy who organized some slumlords in Chicago and had an 80% noshow in a single (unfufilled) Senate term. Oh, and who played the race card to win the Dem primaries - that'll surely win over the hoardes of GOP voters that Oh! insists he'll get. (whatever he stands for which nobody yet knows).
Maybe you forgot what the GOP did to John Kerry for missing a few months of votes while he campaigned - and Kerry had many terms of Senate experience. They are silently snickering and waiting and waiting to unleash all hell on Oh, and only fools can't see that.
And what on earth do the rising costs of a college education and diminishing earning potential of wage earners have to do with Obama's policies--let alone the topic of THIS thread, race-baiting?
Nothing at all. But then it was Oh!-bama and his freeper-style adulators whom, on advice from Karl Rove, began attacking Hillary right-wing style months ago... in compensation for his bumbling campaign. Then they played the race card when that seemed clever and split the Democratic vote yet again. (Nevermind the two civil rights leaders who actually marched with King, sided with Clinton) If in doing so the Oh!-bama adulators fell into the Rovian trap of him now being seen as the "black people's candidate" that's all yer own doins, sugarpie, not mine.
Similarly, practice whacha preach. Calling (of all people) the Clinton's racist, promoting an in-party race war, accusing Mrs. Clinton of killing PM Bhutto, single-handedly being responsible for the Iraq debacle, for months and months on end before she ever hit back was just so high-road of you.
But I suppose it's preferable than facing up to the fact that Oh!-bama has no experience in virtually anything , an 80% no-show record in the Senate and will lose in a landslide to Big-Daddy Protectya John McCain if he (God forbid) becomes our candidate.
In short, sit down your overly-verbose behind on a rock and rotate.
-
My thoughts.
[Read the article: Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]78% of the black vote and 24% of the white vote says something about how people perceived race in this vote, and it helped Mr. Obama this time.
Absolutely. And I believe painting (of all people) the Clinton's as "racist" and playing the race card hurt Obama among whites in SC and is representative of what would be coming nationally.
As anecdote, I admit it infuriatated me, knowing how much the Clinton Administration did for blacks and for the poor, to watch them be demonized by the people they so helped. No good deed goes unpunished as they say.
It was Obama's campaign that played the race card, not Clinton. He made race an issue first. When she responsed it was accurate. We all know damned well that both LBJ and white liberals from the north churches were more than instrumental in getting civil rights off the ground. It was cheap and tawdry of the Obama campaign to paint it as racist. The fact that the two black civil rights leaders that actually marched with MLK sided with Clinton proves it.
Pointing out that every black person in SC rushing out to vote for him simply because he was black (nothing racist there) was fair game. Once Obama's campaign had started a race war in a heavily black populated state the fact is she didn't have a chance. It was true. That she came as close as she did is the only real surprise.
I admit it was then I decided I just wouldn't be able to vote if Obama became our candidate. The Republicans are ruinous scum, but Obama is inexperienced and has run a very dirty campaign. I admit I'm a Clinton adulator, but then, I remember the past indeed, the 90's versus the 80's before them and what's gone down since.
I don't like that' Obama has run this dirty campaign for months - GOP style they've used every dirty tactic against HRC and then accused the Clintons of doing it to them. Classically Rove, more than interestingly the negative attacks on Clinton beginning at the time Rove was writing "helpful editorials" for Obama and escalating thereon.
She in fact didn't hit back for 3 months after being blamed for Iraq, blamed for a PM assasination and every other ludicrous thing you can think of.
Ironically by accepting Rove's help (either directly or implicitly and I don't pretend to know which) the Obama campaign was too naive and inexperienced to see that while marginalizing black voters among the Clinton's, they also marginalized Obama by painting him as the "black candidate" and took away that "cross-party" appeal he was spouting about. (a cross-appeal which I believe was overblown and which he only had because he refused to detail how he would accomplish his goals which prevented the right from painting him as a flaming liberal - temporarily).