Letters to the Editor

• Alex, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

  [Read the article: New Clinton camp spin contradicts old Clinton camp spin]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  And since Clinton refuses to run either a clean campaign without tactics lifted straight out of Karl Rove's disgusting dirty tricks manual or admit she's actually losing, it won't be the last statement coming out of her campaign that would completely contradict something it's handlers claimed to be near gospel somewhere in the past. Penn's latest flip-flop doesn't even compare with Clinton's broken pledge to respect and abide by the original rulings on stripping Michigan and Florida of thier convention delegates. As soon as it had become obvious that she had zero organization and absolutely no strategy in place to compete with Obama once Super Tuesday had come and gone and he posted 11 consecutive wins, suddenly she started parading around the idea that those two farces were valid wins in a futile effort to stop the bleeding. Amazing how Clinton runs around claiming how unfair to the democratic process the caucuses are, yet somehow she seemed to think Florida and Michigan, a state where she could barely beat the "uncommitted" vote, were perfectly legit contests.

  Rezko? While it might have worked in tandem with her other negative attacks and endless smear tactics aimed at the usual traditional Democratic base in places like Ohio, Clinton's going to have to come up with way better than that and soon because the press can't keep suppressing the fact that her claims are completely false. Clinton has been extremely lucky to have made it this far against Obama without having her extremely sleazy past regarding a laundry list of crooked fundraising associates plastered all over the airwaves and odds are Obama's team is about to introduce voters to Clinton's felon friend Mark Rich and perhaps some of the others. Once Obama's campaign starts pointing out some of the events that largely define so much of Clinton's "35 years of experience", Dean, Gore, and maybe even nice guy Jimmy Carter are going to start calling for her to fold her lousy hand, cash in her chips and leave the premises.

  I'm sure Obama, party elders, and the superdelegates didn't want to have it to come to that, but Clinton's disgraceful conduct and never-ending divisive tactics never really left them any other choice. Sure, she'll damage Obama and the party's credibility in the short term with her end justifying the means summit fever quest, but once it's over her credibility and the Clinton DLC stranglehold on the party may just finally be broken for good. That possibility alone almost makes me want to not only vote for Obama, but support him as well. Almost...

  Permalink Wednesday, March 5, 2008 08:17 PM

• Way to go Captainlarab

  [Read the article: Quote of the day]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  As someone whom originally supported neither Clinton or Obama, I have looked objectively and have witnessed up close almost exactly what you stated. My occupation requires that I come in frequent and usually daily contact with supporters of both remaining Dem candidates and the sometimes open contempt the older and younger generations have for one another is really starting to show itself. Walk into Clinton's campaign office and it's almost entirely traditional Dems in thier late-50's or early 60's angry at not having the slightest clue as to why Obama's in the lead and raising more money. The most common rant is usually along the lines of how they could never entrust that much power to somebody who's "much to young to handle this level of responsibility" and therefore could never be considered a "safe choice". Go into Obama's office and it's a little more of a mixed bag with some as old as me (just turned 40) but lots of people in thier early 20's and you can just sense the flat-out disgust they have built up towards the previous generations as they talk about how these baby-boomers have done nothing but put themselves above every other issue facing the country and even the planet, could care less that thier "safe choices" have always led to disaster for every generation behind them and how they were sick of having having a bunch of old people continually make a mess like Iraq and then wring thier hands and duck accountability while younger kids had to go fight and die over there with the added insult of the younger and even next generation having to pay for the whole fiasco because the boomers are too spoiled. And I thought I sensed some frustration at boomers when GENERATION DEBT by Anya Kemenetz. She was tame compared to some of the Obama die-hards.

  I've heard all the feminist angles on the candidates and I can understand what drives the motives to some degree, but it's starting to appear that some on one side want a symbolic victory so much that they may have lost sight of that the movement started out as a vehicle to someday ensure that women would be able to have access to and freely make choices. Feminism is(or at leasst was) a movement, and not blind allegiance to one candidacy or another.

  Permalink Friday, March 7, 2008 10:16 PM