Letters to the Editor
-
Obama "wins"
Obama won in little states, in caucuses, that aren't even representative of most people. Hillary has won all the big states. (Including Michigan and Florida)
I read Dick Morris's book.
We live in a consumer culture. A lot of people are easily sold to the positive or negative.
I specialize in Deconstuctionism - it involves breaking down language, concepts, and information and analyzing the reasons for it's evolution from a comprehensive interdisciplinary perspective. It's as objective as you can get.
I am also a writer. And I have noticed that a lot of writers are not impressed by words alone, and I have not seen much proof of Obama otherwise.
He needs more experience.
Republicans will say he's the most liberal, lightweight Senator, who has no experience, and wouldn't protect the country sufficiently.
Now I'm really going.
-
Conspiracy Theories
Those who are nattering on about about Republican conspiracy theories are not only a bit crazy, they are cowards.
To be wobbly kneed about who the Republicans want the party to nominate is to concede our choice to them before ever standing up for our ideas.
To choose reactively, rather than proactively, on the basis of fear rather than an honest assessment of who is best to lead the country is the mistake that has cost the Dems countless past elections.
How about we stop making it?
Dems are going to have to learn to lead on their principles if they ever want the nation to follow them.
-
@ Anon
dick morris is faux news right wing clinton hating flake who USED TO BE a democratic, but followed the money (and maybe his own true nature who really wants to know) like Chris Matthews
I notice know complete lack of refutation on your part. According to the rules of debate, my point is conceded by you and carries. Nowhere do you refute what is written as untrue (because you you can't), so I see the writer's current affiationas irrelevant to the point at hand. Really, this is like arguing with a child.
-
Anon @ 2:04
Let's take these one by one, shall we?
"1) Most of the criticism of Hillary mirror the right wing propaganda produced for years by the rightwing/mainstream media and many of the clinton critics display clear signs of right wing psychology."
Don't know what that means, but if you're saying that Hillary has done much for which she can be criticized, then I agree. Did you know that she voted for the Iraq war without reading the National Intelligence Estimate that reported on the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? It's true. Ready on day one? Hell, the woman doesn't do her homework.
"2) Far more obama supporters than hillary supporters are ignorant or misinformed about recent political history."
Some explanation would have been nice, but I'm sure that's asking too much of you. I'm sure, also, that you have a convenient explanation for the fact that Obama does best among the best educated people. Hillary polls best among people who didn't go to college. Make of that what you will.
"3)The mainstream/rightwing media has not meaningfully examined obama and has relentlessly promoted him."
Our perceptions differ, obviously, but if your argument is that Obama is not "vetted" and that Hillary is "vetted," perhaps you'd care to explain for us why Hillary hasn't released her tax returns, why her records of her time in the White House as First Lady remain sealed (interesting since she is running on 35 years of experience but she won't tell us what that experience is), and why her husband's fundraising records for his charity are sealed.
"4)Many of the states where are obama won caucuses are overwhelmingly republican and the democrats have no chance in them in november."
So.... voters in caucus states don't matter? Independent voters don't matter? Voters in red states don't matter? Sorry to burst your bubble, but these states get to send delegates to the Democratic National Convention just like New York does.
There is one thing on which we agree. Democrats have no chance in red states in November... if Hillary is the nominee.
-
@Dumber Truth,
I know you're still here.
Hillary won Michigan because Obama wasn't on the ballot and voters were informed by the Democratic National Committee that their votes wouldn't count.
Hillary won Florida because she had superior name recognition to Obama, who wasn't allowed to campaign in the state, and voters were informed by the Democratic National Committee that their votes wouldn't count, and because older voters, who skew for Hillary, were motivated to get to the polls to vote on an unpopular property tax referendum on the state ballot.
For someone who claims to be a "writer," you sure don't do much research.
You twit.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble, but these states get to send delegates to the Democratic National Convention just like New York does.
This is the fundamental issue: to me the contest that MATTERS is the one in november, for you it apparently is the contest between Clinton and Obama. THIS difference is the issue that matters most for the democrats.
-
@deepertruth
"a lot of writers are not impressed by words alone"
1) If Obama is "words alone," then why has he sponsored more meaningful legislation in the Senate than Hillary has? Also, why are his policy proposals just as detailed as hers?
2) Has Obama said that he offers only words? No, but the words/action dichotomy is an easy one for the Clinton spin machine to sell, and it's an easy one for simple minds to swallow.
3) If you're not impressed by words, you must be a hell of a writer.
-
@Anon
You really do the rest of your supporters a disservice with the ad hominem attacks. If you want to support Hillary, that's fine... you're free to do whatever you want. I just find it interesting that no disputes the truth of Mr. Morris' book, but instead they act like children and say things like,
"But he hates Democrats now!" or "He's a Republican now!" And if you somehow believe that one side has a monopoly on truth telling, then this country really is doomed.
This is a search for truth, not "But his views don't agree with mine. Be the bigger person, politics is no place for childish attitudes.