Letters to the Editor
-
Every politician is a whore
IS there news here?
Remember, the media is owned by the same companies that 'own' the US government.
Their interest in pretend PC politeness is pure power and money based, not morality.
But the sheepocracy continues to allow this distortion of the truth to be maintained.
-
notorious
At some point someone is going to have to start running against McCain in order for McCain to lose. Right now he has an enormous resevoir of entirely unearned goodwill and respect from the electorate as a alleged moderate. The more time the Dem nominee has to debunk the ridiculous "straight talk" myths around McCain the better for the Dems.
Also, HRC is setting the bar as to the types of attacks that are viewed as acceptable by the wider electorate. She keeps lowering the bar with her attacks and this will partly embolden McCain and partly condition the voters to accept attacks like ones on Obama's patriotism.
Sen. Clinton's continuing campaign also further entrences her supporters against Obama, bleeds her supporters of money they might give the nominee for the fall, and otherwise weakens party unity and vitality for the strech run.
HRC's present campaign will hurt Democrats in November.
-
It has been ever thus...
Carol Lloyd wrote:
>But as someone who also favors the senator from Illinois,
>I've become increasingly queasy about the tone some of
>his supporters are willing to take.
Well, it's been like this all along. Obama supporters have been savaging Hillary, often making ad hominem attacks, even just blatant insults.
Of course, it's gone both ways. For some reason, we have trouble supporting our own without slipping into attacking the other. For some reason, we have trouble with making fair comparisons without slipping into tangential or even irrelevant slams.
I actually like Obama quite a bit, but when people attack Hillary like this, I feel compelled to defend her. But there's a bigger concern than my insistence on fairness. It's the point that The Notorious W.E.S. points to.
The Obama campaign is not a traditional democratic campaign, in that it is not running on policies and expertise. It's running on his charisma and the idea of a new way for people to relate to each other. Post-partisanship. Post-racism. Post-"politics of the past." Something better for our neighborhoods, our communities and our governance.
My concern about the Reverend Wright thing is that Obama's patronage and financial support of his church causes me to question the degree of his own commitment to to this idea that he is running on. And my concern about his supporters' "tone" is that it causes me to question their commitment this idea.
What does it mean to support Obama if you don't even aspire to live that idea, even with regard to his rival. It's all fine to demand that others listen to you and treat you better -- or those you agree with. But unless you are willing to demand that same for your rival or even opponents, isn't it just hypocritical whining? If that's the case, what is the meaning of your support of Obama's campaign?
-
Clinton putting her chances of winning above the party
"Once one of us has the nomination there will be a great effort to unify the Democratic party and we will do so, because, remember I have a lot of supporters who I would expect them to support Senator Obama if he were the nominee," Quote from Clinton.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/03/clinton-tries-to-make-amends.html
-
those in the know
know who's
the ho
ya know?
-
Was she in a comedy club?
I've never heard Randi Rhodes except for this YouTUBE performance, and, if anyone is shocked, I can only assume they've never been to a comedy club!
-
Reap what you sow
There's a big difference between Randi Rhodes calling Clinton a fucking whore and a sweet elderly lady saying she hates Clinton. The first is, indeed, an ad hominem attack, and a rather clumsy one at that. The latter, though, is just a woman who’s articulating her dislike for Clinton, and is nothing to feel queasy about. As this whole process got underway, I was really torn between Clinton and Obama. After Clinton’s unprincipled, dishonest, entitled, condescending campaign, though, I don’t like her much either—she’s not just insulted a candidate I prefer, she’s insulted Obama supporters like me for being naïve just because we’re more impressed with Obama’s approach than her claims to “experience.” I guess if she somehow manipulates her way into the nomination, as bad as she is, well, McCain’s a disaster waiting to happen. But I won’t be volunteering for her, and I’ll be holding my nose when I vote for her. That’s not because of the media, Obama, or anything other than her. She chose to run a cynical campaign. Dislike (and even hatred) is what she’s sown.
-
What is the difference between a Broadsheet letter writer and a troll?
Or a politician and a whore?
That's the kind of discourse we get from the Randi Rhodes and Rush Limbaughs of the world.
-
unfair attacks on Clinton...
right, because I remember that time there was that e-mail circulating about how Clinton was secretly a Muslim, and that picture of her in scary Muslim-looking native garb showed up in the media, and that time that media outlets ran 30 second clips of her pastor saying mean things and then putting the blame on her, or that time when one of her advisors, acting on her own, said something embarrassing to the Canadians about NAFTA except it turned out his people said something worse and did it first.
Yeah, somebody calling her a bad name in front of a couple hundred people...that really is reason not to support the candidate that person supports.
-
Fed up with you all
I hope you Obama fans realize that you are handing the presidency to McCain.
For a fact, I would not work on Obama's campaign with any of you people, who, as I have observed, are mostly self-serving narcissistic creeps. And Randi Rhodes is your goddess.
-
Squelching Free Speech
One can disagree with Randi Rhodes (though most would admit that there is something whorish about all politicians who have to solicit for funds to run their campaigns), but one thing that can't be argued is that Rhodes did not give her tirade on-air, unlike such mean-spirited public commentators such as Michael Savage-Wiener or Ann Coulter or "Bulldog" Bill O'Reilly. Air America has the right to be concerned with how Rhodes represents them in public, but doesn't Rhodes have the right to air her private if sometimes off-color opinions off-the-air?