Letters to the Editor
-
xrandadu -
you could join Cy and Anon outside the door and kick and kick -
but if you would have hugged your anon instead - I'm very sure
he would have selfdestructed!
-
@ ljwalker
I've grown so tired of the youth and "inexperience" myth that people like you continue to perpetuate about Obama. This guy was a community organizer, law professor and legislator back when Hillary was spending her time trashing the likes of Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey and failing spectacularly on health care, setting back the cause of universal coverage by more than a decade. (Of course, maybe you were citing her Iraq vote as part of her greater experience?) Obama has far more impressive credentials and an ability to communicate his vision powerfully. Having an inspiring leader who can motivate others is far more important to this country than hiring a wonkish technocrat who thinks that trash talking her opponent is "the fun part" of the campaign.
-
@Cythera
Cythera: "For my part, I hope he is cheated, in the most egregiously obvious and corrupt way, out of the nomination, so I can dance on his political grave. Then I can come in here and revel in the shrieks and moans of his dying cult."
I am increasingly becoming convinced that you are working on behalf of the Obama campaign, as some sort of subversive plan to make Clinton supporters look like the worst kind of nutjobs.
-
Why I support Barack Obama
@ljwalker53:
I'm older than Barack Obama and I don't see your generational wedge. What I see is a very shrewd strategy of attracting and energizing young voters to broaden the Democratic base. It is a fact of life is that my children will be living more of their lives in the future than I will.
I support Barack Obama because I am not at all satisfied with the world that my generation is bequeathing to the next generation. The very least I can do for them is to give them a political system that isn't totally dysfunctional. When Barack Obama promises "change we can believe in" I am hopeful for the sake of my children that he can deliver.
The choice between the candidates comes down to a person's expectations for the future. Yes, Hillary Clinton will be a big improvement over Bush, but can't we ask for more than that? Indeed, doesn't the next generation need more than that?
Reversing Bush's policies isn't enough to solve the challenges the next generation will face. For their sake we need to elect a president with the potential to transform a political system that no longer serves the interests of the people. What Barack Obama is doing now is enlisting young voters in what will be a difficult struggle to make that transformation a reality.
-
pwoxby said it -
and that's why we support Obama!
-
Seriously, Hillary deserves better than that
Her supporters are turning into wackos before my eyes. Why would anyone vote for McCain over Obama? 100 more years of war, for what. How "inexperienced" is he, to be worse than fricking John McCain, who thought it was OK to walk through Baghdad without escort?
Obama was a community organzer in Chicago, he will know how to handle things decently, and it's ridiculous and downright STUPID to assert that he can't. And Hillary was only in the Senate four more terms, but he was in a state legislature as well, and I don't see too much difference experience-wise. And before that, she was first lady. An involved and interested first lady, to be sure, but it's not the same. Seriously, if you wanted experience, you should have voted Dodd or Biden. But to want McCain over Obama, I reiterate is just plain dumb. How is McCain better than Obama? He doesn't know squat about the Economy and won't stop global warming, because he will surround himself with Reichswingers. Seriously, you can argue that Clinton is the better manager, but you can't argue that Obama will be dismal at it, and more to the point, that he will be worse than McCain. IMO, you are just bitter. Which is sad. Why can't you defend Hillary on her real merits, and the issues. It would gain you a lot more credibility.
-
Re: Paul Krugman's column
@pieceofcake:
Yeah, after spending his entire column trashing Barack Obama's supporters, Krugman felt constrained to end on a conciliatory note. But even the most vehement critics of Hillary Clinton, Frank Rich comes to mind, don't attack her supporters. Like I said, Krugman lost it.
-
I just wanted to point out-
that we live in such "ironius times", where everubody likes
to trash somebody and then critisize trashing.
-
I'll Just Say It Straight Out:
I really don't "like" Barack Obama nor many/most of his most vocal supporters. Period.
I don't like Barack Obama's elision of basic facts about his votes in the Illinois statehouse or the US Senate. On several key votes/issues, he makes blatant claims that are not supported by the facts.
I don't care for his "style"...a transmogrification of "down home...one of y'all" to "Harvard yuppie". Please, Barack, pick a constituency/persona and stick with it!
Mostly, though, he seems so darned negative on the stump. His speeches are replete with veiled negative references to Hillary Clinton which are dismissive of her years of experience and service to America. I don't see a message of hope, I see a message of "it's my turn, Hillary, get out of the way!". That kind of snideness turns me...and others...off.
Just a quick scan of the pro-Obama letter-writers here shows a deep reservoir of nastiness that borders on abject hate toward Senator Clinton. You're not going to endear those of us who support Hillary to your side, cause...or, vote. Think you can win the election withOUT those who voted for Senator Clinton or John Edwards joining you enthusiastically? Think again.
Now, I'll just sit back and watch the foul and fetid responses pour in from the Obama supporters...who will prove my point completely. Thanks in advance.
-
The Liberal fear of success!
The Democratic Party needs a psychiatric evaluation. It is anxious about not being good enough, feels undeserving of a win, and employs self-sabotage as a means of avoiding having to perform and/or make public its insecurities. That is the evaluation I would give if a backroom deal decides the nominee, especially if it's the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton. If super delegates decide our nominee, the other candidates' supporters would likely desert in large numbers and we would lose to the Republicans in the general election.
If we get our nominee through a fair and transparent process then there is no doubt we will win in November. Those of you who write otherwise are old, tired naysayer. Slap yourselves a few times and wake the eff up! The Republican party is divided, in disarray, and weaker than it has been in a long time. We have a candidate that is, by no stretch of the imagination, a superstar! He has won election after election, is admired on both the right and the left, is young, brilliant, fresh, and charismatic and you all just want to toss him aside? If the Republicans had anything even close to what we have in Obama, you could very well kiss this election goodbye. The Republicans don't get bogged down by sentimental notions. They know how to pick a winner. Some of them have even told us which of our candidates would be harder to beat, or negatively, which they would prefer to run against. The Democratic Party on the other hand seems married to a loser mentality.
If we mess this one up Donna Brazile won't be the only one to desert the party!