Letters to the Editor
-
Edwards
Re: "His biggest problem? He's not a minority. He's the best candidate, and it's being held against him that he is a white male."
The media ignore Edwards because he's a liberal who will end the transfer of wealth from the taxpayers to the corporations. I think most Democrats want to vote for him but have been brainswashed to think that he cannot win. If the current polling is correct, Edwards is the only one who can actually beat the Republicans.
-
Democratic votes
Is it possible that Edwards has suffered not only from the media tossing him out of the race months ago but also from people voting for Obama as a vote against Hillary or for Hillary as a vote against Obama?
I'm really wondering whether the negativity of the campaign is carrying over into voting against rather than for these two candidates.
-
Actually I thought it was kind of shrewd
Clearly Bill Clinton is a huge asset for Hillary. So Obama tries to turn that strength into a weakness by implying that Hillary is letting her husband do her campaigning for her. Sort of a "when the going gets tough, you have to have your husband do your fighting for you" implication that could be devastating if it takes hold.
Hillary got in some nice hits herself but the Rezko thing is complicated (um, kind of like whitewater) and ultimately won't have th same kind of legs.
Oh and democrats hate Wal-Mart. We love Target.
-
Obama and Wallmart
Wow, what a common person finds on the internet with just a Google search:
“Politicians who care more about their careers than their constituents go along to get elected...It’s a game that never ends, but every American knows – it’s time to end the game.” If Obama was anything like the social justice “progressive” and union-supporter his often myopic, so-called left-liberal supporters and campaign narrative claim, his endorsement would have gone easily and quickly to Dowell. It would have been a no-brainer. The choice was very clear, and he sided with capitalist power against labor. Fortunately for Obama, perhaps, Dowell won the run-off.
For what it’s worth, Obama’s wife Michelle received $51,200 in 2006 for attending a few board meetings of TreeHouse Foods, a giant firm that relied heavily on its close business relationship with Wal-Mart (Sweet 2007a). (The granting of high-pay/do-little board posts to the spouses of politicians is a longstanding tool of the “old,” corporate-dominated politics that Senator Obama claims to reject [see Lewis 1996]). Mrs. Obama resigned from this position in the summer of 2007, citing “increased demands on her time” in connection with her husband’s campaign. The deeper reality was that she needed to cut her politically damaging ties to a notoriously anti-labor company that her husband attacked in speeches to please popular audiences concerned about the growing chasm between the rich and poor in the U.S.
Obama’s Tillman endorsement is a small story, perhaps, but its part of a much larger record (3) suggesting rather strongly that Obama is just another in a long line of corporate-Democratic politicians who make “populist and peace-stressing promises and gestures” they are certain to “betray instantly on the assumption of power” (Herman 2007).
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=13635
C'mon press do your work, there are no saints or saviours.
-
Clinton and Wal-Mart
It is my understanding that Ms. Clinton was a Wal-Mart board member during a period when it was widely know that women employees had one pay scale with a glass ceiling and men had another pay scale and promotions. If I, as a rural homemaker, not in any way connected to WalMart, was aware of that situation, surely Ms. Clinton should have known and addressed this equal rights issue. (I believe President Clinton was governor of Arkansas at the time.) Perhaps women employees at WalMart were not aware at that time who had input regarding their employment situation. If the Clintons had a long-range plan, they should have recognized an issue that could be troublesome in the future.
-
@skylark
Sorry, but she comes across as a complete narcissist. That's the image part and yes, it does matter. On the issues she's a thousand times better than any Republican, but when she comes across as "how dare you people challenge my coronation!" it turns a lot of people off. It is smug and obnoxious. Not saying Obama or Edwards are perfect but I don't get that sense from them.
-
Shrill?
I've never understood the meme that Hillary Clinton is "shrill." She just doesn't come across that way to me. And I wonder if it's because we aren't use to hearing forceful women in the public arena. (btw, I'm quite undecided between Clinton and Obama, so I'm not a Clinton partisan.)
-
Edwards' big mistake
Like John Kerry failing to act quickly and decisively to the Swift Boaters, the Edwards campaign will regret its decision to make Clinton their target and not Obama. This was always going to be a two-horse race -- Hillary and the non-Hillary candidate -- and Edwards would have been better served to go after Obama early and save his knives for Clinton later. I'm sure he has more substantive differences with the latter than the former, but unfortunately, campaigns aren't always about substance. Last night was the first night I heard him go after Barak and he should have been doing it much earlier.
-
Ugly campaign = ugly administration.
As I read the comments here I'm amazed at how many people are willing to give Hillary a pass for the last few weeks of distortions. She and Bill and their legion of surrogates have been out on the hustings every single day taking their whacks at Obama, claiming falsely that he changed his position on Iraq, distorting his comments on Reagan, hinting darkly about his use of cocaine, belittling his comparisons to MLK and JFK, and trying to muddy the waters about his religion.
If this is the way Hillary is willing to run her campaign, you can bet that this is the way she'll run her administration. Her supporters are pretty high-minded when it comes to Bush's ethical lapses, but when it comes to their own candidate's, they're silent. As far as I'm concerned, if the Democrats nominate Hillary for president, they lose whatever claim to ethical superiority they might have enjoyed.