Letters to the Editor
New Deal Democrat
Published Letters: 206 Editor's Choice: 43
-
KateTex
[Read the article: The ugliest election]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your analogy to the current situations in Florida and Michigan is absurd.
Both the Clinton and Obama camps agreed before a single vote was cast this year that Michigan and Florida would not be included because they broke party rules. Please explain the ethics of Clinton's reneging on that agreement simply because she believes it would benefit her. I'm sure we're all ears.
Moreover, your conflation of the internal workings of the Democratic Party with the outright fraud that occurred during the general election in Florida is offensive and stupid in the extreme.
If you wonder why your candidate is such a turnoff to so many people, you need look no farther than your own solipsistic, self-centered, moronic "reasoning". (You're likely a paid Republican operative anyway; I'm in a generous mood.)
-
KateTex again
[Read the article: The ugliest election]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fine, we can parse words all day long. Why did Clinton agree not to campaign in Michigan and Florida? Where were her loud protests against the discipline the DNC handed down last fall with respect to Florida and Michigan? Why wasn't she crying about how unjust the "disenfranchisement" was before she discovered she was in trouble (after Iowa)?
Answer: She didn't complain because she thought the nomination was going to be a cakewalk and that she was entitled. She couldn't care less about anyone's vote not counting unless she really needed it. Guess what? Democracy intervened with her grand plans. What a bummer!
By the way, since when does a Republican like you speak for Franklin and Eleanor?
-
KateTex can't answer a simple question
[Read the article: The ugliest election]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since you seem to have reading comprehension problems, I'll ask again. Why did Hillary Clinton agree to the rules going into the primary season, then renege on that agreement when - and only when - she discovered she was losing?
It's really that simple, KateTex. We're all waiting for your reply.
If you can't provide a cogent, defensible answer to such a simple question, then yes, I'm calling you a Republican troll. I think most Salon readers who've been forced to suffer through your hysterical over-the-top attacks on Obama for what seems like eternity now would agree.
Your act is pretty tired. Move along to some other liberal site and pester others for a while before somebody drops a house on you.
-
The Devolution of the Clintons
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Clintons in 1992: Vote your hopes, not your fears.
The Clintons in 2008: All we have is fear itself.
******
I exaggerate, of course, but not by much given Hillary's comments regarding:
- Obama's not being a Muslim "as far as I know".
- Her being the candidate of hardworking white Americans.
- Her wanton summoning of one of the most tragic events in American political history, especially for liberals, and all for the cheapest of political gains - vainly attempting to breathe life into the corpse that is her campaign.
Joan, the fact that you can't (or won't) see the sleazy pattern at work doesn't mean it's not there. As for the Obama campaign's exploitation of a misstep by a rival, how exactly is that unfair? Isn't that what we call politics? Didn't Hillary shoot herself in the foot by making that remark?
I used to kind of like Hillary, and remember agreeing with her in the '90s about her "vast right-wing conspiracy" remark.
But no more. The perpetual victimhood of her supporters - and the way they always project that onto her - is revolting.
By her Senate record, we now know her as a neocon-loving, warmongering, Zelig-like chameleon who'll say and do anything to get elected.
-
Amity
[Read the article: Still waiting for Madam President ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your post is a perfect example of the hysteria and irrationality that seems to grip the most diehard HRC supporters. In my opinion, nobody who voted for either Hillary or Obama has anything to be ashamed of.
Questions for you:
- Do you really dismiss the fact that, for the first time in history, we have a (liberal) woman Speaker of the House? Is that really so trivial?
- Don't you think that a vote for Obama is also a vote for women's rights? As the most blatant example, isn't he now our best hope to prevent reactionary court decisions on reproductive rights?
- More often than not, presidents are elected from the pool of 50 state governors. There have been, and continue to be, any number of women governors from both parties who are smart and savvy, and their prospects for election to the White House get better every year. Ann Richards was one of my most favorite politicians ever, and I would've voted for her in a heartbeat.
This idea that it's Hillary or nothing is simply ridiculous, and now that she's effectively lost (due more to her inept campaign and decidedly anti-progressives votes - the Iraq War, for example - than misogyny) are you really content to take your toys and go home? If so, then I would submit that your concerns for the rights of women are not so serious after all. At a certain point, it just becomes an issue of childishness.