Letters to the Editor
-
ezhik2
I also understand that Barry Obama was one of those who 'didn't want to vote pro-choice anymore,
--So you don't agree that "present" was (when it had the okay--and when he used it) a pro-choice vote in the state of Illinois?
because they knew these were being used against them in their campaigns.' Fine with me. Why should he risk his future campaigns?
--He was not the only candidate to use this technique. If you recall South Dakota had amended their laws and he spoke out about it. His position was always clear, but to protect his seat AND to vote pro-choice was also an option (Before NOW took it back at least). So you should be mad at the other pols who did the same in Illinois (?)
I don't blame him for placing this issues on his D list, way below McCainesque proposal to chase illegal immigrants.
--?? First I disagree about the D List. See above. Also, the immigrant policy assessment seems pretty harsh. By the way, you know that McCain is despised by his party for his "liberal" immigration reform work--and at the last debate Clinton and Obama expressed very similar views on immigration other than on the issue of driver's licenses. Maybe you hate Clinton's very similar position as well?
I am fine with it. But why does his campaign has to lie and wiggle?
--Okay I need proof of lying and wriggling in order to respond.
Just admit it.
--??
It will not even hurt him considering his most active supporters. We already have one Obamite who supports parental notification laws.
--again ?? I haven't read that far back in the threads so I can't say that I know about that or have any response other than---yeah. And I guess "Obamite" is better than Obamabot--although it kind of reminds me of vegimite, the Australian sandwich spread. I think I just prefer Obama supporter who guesses from the posts here at least that she will be voting for Clinton eventually. If things can stay at least half way civil between now and then. (My If is not a threat or a caveat, but I have to admit that I think that the arguing can be exhausting. Maybe I need a little break from these boards.)
Peace.
-
ezhik2
People like you, and there are a bunch, are exactly why Hillary is losing and losing big, and why she will continue to lose. Your strident line of BS, dished out at top volume without consideration of logic, reason, history, reading or anything else, drives away possible Hillary supporters.
Every time you post, Hillary loses another voter. Kind of like Peter Pan in reverse.
So, keep posting. You are the best friend that Obama has. You are killing Hillary by loving her too much. And, as a Hillary opponent, I have to say, "Thanks Hon!"
-
Doloresflower, no one could ever accuse you of being shrill or strident.
However, I am curious as to what you think of dataguyx's post in which he accused ezhik2 of being strident and lacking "logic, reason, history, reading, or anything else" and then concludes by saying "Thanks, Hon!" A little bit dismissive, don't you think? Especially after your "Peace."
When you worry feminists and others -- who by virtue of having a vagina -- may look like feminists, do you ever think about all those guys who support Obama because ... ?
I am just curious, woman to woman, about how you feel about some of the company you keep by virtue of being an Obama supporter. Please understand that I am not saying all guys who support Obama do so because ... but one certainly wonders about the language chosen by some of those who do.
(Don't get me wrong, some of the good guys at Broadsheet actually support Obama. I like them just fine, but ...)
-
@ AKA Smith
You make a valid point. Not that I'm never shrill or strident...ahem...but about the Obama supporters who are more anti-Clinton (or possibly anti-woman) than pro-Obama.
I believe the phrase is "politics makes strange bedfellows." I have to admit that I had a moment of (quiet) rage when I found out that my boyfriend had voted for McCain in the primary--he's an independent and says he will vote for a Democrat in the main race but he didn't want to choose between Clinton and Obama and he didn't want Romney to win. I was upset because this is California and I knew the contest was going to be tight here--but then I thought, deep breath. People do the best they can when they vote.
I "love" Obama probably mostly because I "love" his book Dreams from my father, like Gary Kamilaya it made me believe he's a good, deep, compassionate person. My further research on him confirms this--although some of his corporate ties do concern me. Do I agree with all of his supporters, no. But I don't agree with all of Clintons' supporters tenor either. It's also tricky in this race because if you "go negative" you risk being accused of attacking a woman, and if you sing Obama cheerleading songs, you are accused of being a cultist groupie.
I don't watch television news or I do get upset. I think that t.v. news pundits bother me more than the Obama supporters on these boards. The paid pundits should really know better. Joan's right, they're probably having the opposite effect from the one that they want.
I read some of your posts earlier today (I have a boring terrible job at the moment--and a bad political addiction) and I thought you might like this article from the Atlantic Monthly if you haven't already read it exploring the personal relationship between Obama and Clinton in the senate. It seems like these personal relationships "matter" to you. They do to me too. Anyway, I found it interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/clinton-obama
Cheers. I think I should sleep now instead of "politickin'"
-
p.s. aka I concur
that dataguyx's post is a little obnoxious, but are you sure dataguyx's is a guy? Funny, the "hon" phrase usually reminds me of a woman, so that's how I originally read it. Funny the assumptions we bring to the way we read.