Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
wright5579
Published Letters: 167
I'd much rather hear a plan for how to deal with the current situation than handing out blame for how we got there.
when he blew his nose. Obama followers are a cult.
I agree with the first poster. Salon used to be a site with an investigative journalism quality (Walter Reed and Abu Ghraib come to mind). But now, it just seems like it's one big Obama lovefest. It's really turning me off to the site.
Pointing out the roots of one's name is far different than going by a name. Benjamin Franklin did not go by Bin Yamin. His birth certificate did not say Bin Yamin Franklin. You're grasping at straws.
1. All this talk about Obama being against the Iraq war from the start only gives Clinton an opportunity to bring up the fact that he's inexperienced and was merely a state senator at the time.
2. It's a hell of a lot easier to be against something when you don't actually have a say in the matter. Was it really a difficult position as a nobody Illinois state senator? Who out there knows how many state senators were against the Iraq war from the start?
3. Didn't the Obama campaign say it was outrageous that Clinton would use an add like that? But it's okay to run the exact same "fear-mongering" ad if you're the second one to do it? Isn't it hypocritical to applaud Obama for copy-catting an ad he just denounced?
4. To quote a poster the other day, "If Obama farted I think you all would applaud."
I think you all need to be careful what you wish for. Maybe you're all far more informed than I, but I don't feel like I know very much about Obama, and I happen to think that's by design. Who knows what we may get in Obama.
Wow!!! I didn't catch that the first time I watched the Obama ad. I think that's a bit of an overstatement. Kind of makes it sound like he's the only one on the planet that was against the war from the start. Well, I guess "The one, the only one of the remaining two democratic primary candidates to oppose the war in Iraq from the beginning" is a bit cumbersome.
There's a big difference between relying on voters seeking out information and disseminating information as part of one's campaign.
Obama is doing the former, with a whole lot of uplifting rhetoric, while Clinton is doing the latter.
Since I have not sought out information on www.barackobama.com, I really don't know what he's about, other than lifting up the country, uniting the country, and changing the country.
Obama taking his name off the ballot was a political ploy to try to get "uncommitted" to defeat Clinton. He overestimated his support and it backfired. He ought to have to live with that.
Obama had to file paperwork to take his name off, ie, go out of his way. Clinton did nothing. There was only an agreement not to campaign there, not to all pull their names off the ballots. How is that cheating? It was a ploy that backfired on Obama. His campaign thought it would be humiliating for Clinton if she lost to "uncommitted." They overestimated support for them.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6257.html
There were other things on the ballot. Not just a "pointless" primary. Nice try though. Obama lost. Just be glad it probably won't count.
Look at the county breakdown of Texas for why Hillary is the better bet to beat McCain. Obama is basically a more articulate John Kerry, well, without the whole war-hero thing. Obama's support comes from urban areas and wealthy elites. He won't win anywhere that Kerry didn't win.
He went out of his way to file paperwork to take his name off the ballot. It was a political ploy to try to get "uncommitted" to beat Hillary. It backfired. Live with it.
Obama supporters again trying to make race an issue.
yawn.
Why on earth should they have to vote again?
How is Obama taking his name off the ballot following the rules? Seriously, explain that to me. What rule are you talking about? It was a political stunt. It backfired. They had a pledge not to campaign in Michigan or Florida (which Obama reneged on, but we don't mention that), but nothing about taking the candidates name off the ballot to my knowledge. Please provide a link if you know that taking the name off the ballot was part of any agreement or "rule." So please, stop with the misinformation about Clinton "not following the rules."
Could someone please provide some piece of objective evidence to suggest that she is running a dirty campaign.
Is she breaking a rule by not releasing them? Just because her opponent asks her to doesn't mean that she has to, or is playing dirty by not agreeing. She said she'll release them when she's the nominee.
nice post. Sorry if I overreacted to your "misinformation."
Again, you resort to aggressive language without providing any sort of argument. The tax returns will be released when she's the nominee. What's so difficult about that? What's so unethical about that? How is that part of a dirty campaign? The Republicans have tried for years to get dirt on the Clintons and they have failed. Providing some sort of logical, objective evidence for your negative posts might help you get your point across.
Seriously, it can't be that bad if she's comfortable releasing them after becoming the nominee. You act as if once she releases the forms we're going to find out she's getting money from Osama bin Laden or something.
Yeah, it's sort of a waste of time to argue with someone like that.
Way to cement that whole "My hero or no one" attitude that has become the stereotype of Obama supporters.
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
