Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
vernon patterson
Published Letters: 22
Despite my admiration for Obama -- and my sincere hope that he is elected -- I think it's time to ask Axelrod a question: What happened? The campaign seems to be stuck in neutral, Obama seems to be shrinking from the typical Republican attacks and, let's face it, he could be auditioning for a remake of "Flipper" with his move-to-the-center policy "refinements." The bold and brave image of the primaries has morphed into something...not so bold and not so brave.
The convention stadium speech sounded like a great idea -- before Berlin. Now it will only play into the Messiah image that I fear is gaining traction with the electorate. I suppose it is too late to switch venues; perhaps they can stay in an extended close-up throughout the speech and avoid showing vast aerial shots of adoring throngs.
I truly believe Obama can reverse the recent slide with a great convention speech, sharp debate appearances and, most importantly, by facing John McCain face to face in town-hall meetings. The more the merrier. This is the way Americans will get to know the real Obama and not the skewed fabrication the McCain camp has created to deflect the flaws of their own clown-of-a-candidate.
Picking the perfect VP won't make a bit of a difference if Obama can't orchestrate a way to personally connect with independents and fed-up moderate Republicans. Pouring money into slick counter-attack ads is important -- but challenging John McCain on his own town-hall turf is the way to turn this campaign around.
Oh, lord, all this hand-wringing about Bill's ego, Hillary's PUMA misfits and the Decline of Western Civilization as we know it. It's so silly, because by the time November 4 rolls around and the debates are over, there isn't a Democrat in the country who will vote for John McCain. Obama's poll numbers ROSE 3 points after the Hilton ad, which few have bothered to report.
Bill Clinton is set to speak before the VP on Wednesday night. This means it's not going to be Richardson. Bill will want to set up the entrance of the future VP and he's not going to appear if the choice is someone who has stabbed him in the back. I think the Clintons know far more about Obama's VP plans than anyone thinks and conventional wisdom says that it will be Clinton's favorite, Evan Bayh.
I am beginning to think this has all been very carefully planned and that Bill will introduce Hillary as the VP...and, according to the script, the place will go nuts.
Streisand will appear, sing "Happy Days Are Here Again" and all is well in conventionland.
Obama's vacation was perfectly timed. I'm sure he's bored with himself by now.
By the time post-Olympic doldrums appear, the Convention looms into view -- a positively Shakespearean scenario guaranteed to offer up a few political jaw-droppers along the way. And then there is THE SPEECH.
I think Obama knows exactly what he's doing and Obama "fatigue" will be proven to be a temporary -- and perhaps necessary -- malady. Even if it's just for 10 days, the words of Joni Mitchell spring to mind: "You don't know what you've got till it's gone."
Elizabeth Edwards, by her own account, knew of John's affair in 2006, yet -- recklessly -- she supported him in his bid for the Presidency nevertheless.
Her lack of judgment is astounding considering she must have entertained the possibility this situation could become public and not only hurt Edwards but bruise the Democratic party as well.
What if, theoretically, Edwards had won the nomination or Obama had picked Edwards as his running mate and then the news of the affair leaked out? Say good-bye to the White House.
Elizabeth Edwards was in collusion with her husband to hide the details of his affair, placing personal ambition over party solidarity in an astonishingly selfish and idiotic decision that could have created absolute chaos in the general election.
While others have criticized John Edwards (and rightfully so), Elizabeth should also be held accountable for her deception as well.
I find them both appalling.
Another Hillary?
Elizabeth Edwards, by her own account, knew of John's affair in 2006, yet -- recklessly -- she supported him in his bid for the Presidency nevertheless.
Her lack of judgment is astounding considering she must have entertained the possibility this situation could become public and not only hurt Edwards but bruise the Democratic party as well.
What if, theoretically, Edwards had won the nomination or Obama had picked Edwards as his running mate and then the news of the affair leaked out? Say good-bye to the White House.
Elizabeth Edwards was in collusion with her husband to hide the details of his affair, placing personal ambition over party solidarity in an astonishingly selfish and idiotic decision that could have created absolute chaos in the general election.
While others have criticized John Edwards (and rightfully so), Elizabeth should also be held accountable for her deception as well.
I find them both appalling.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
