Letters to the Editor
-
1. Why should I not be worried about Omaba refusing to denounce a grade A shit-stirrer like Farrakhan?
which part of the debate did you not see? which part of "I denounce and reject" did you not hear? in what way did Obama "refuse" (your word) to renounce, denounce, reject him?????
-
No hope for objective reporting, either...
When the bloggers begin to sound like some of their one-note, gutter-talking commenters ("from a beleaguered victim to a whiny grouch"), you know you've hit the low-point in progressive journalism. These writers don't seem even to realize that their deep-seeded misogyny streams out of them like beer from a keg.
The reason Clinton is always asked the tough questions first in the debates is because the networks hosting them know Obama is too unfamiliar with policy to answer without her furnishing the talking points. (Hence, her remark about offering him a pillow and a glass of water.) And while Clinton gets hounded to death about why she hasn't filed her income tax return yet (it isn't due till April 15th), not a single follow-the-money question has ever been asked about Obama's longtime fundraiser and co-property owner, Tony Rezko. The Chicago slumlord goes on trial soon for multiple felonies, and the paper trail extends back 12 years between the two of them. How is that not relevant to a presidential debate? Inevitably, we'll hear all about this corruption when and if Clinton withdraws from the race. Then, once he's discredited, Obama will not be elected dogcatcher. For more on the Rove strategy, I've posted an article at thecityedition.com. Click on the screen name for a direct link.
-
see? Asher Steinberg and jpincus?
if obama were really antisemitic would nazi jim and anonymouth have gone all apoplectic? trust me, he's not. he just doesn't hate muslims. and that (in itself) is no crime. chill out and welcome aboard - we have some nice days coming up. peach in the middle each.
-
Anon 10:24 AM
A lot of Republicans aren't bad people. People make bad decisions, and change their minds. A lot of these have switched over to Obama, he offers them a honest chance of redemption. Obama's message is called one of hope, in truth it is one of forgiveness.
But those who haven't really regretted what has happened over the last 8 years, seem to have gone over to Hillary. You can tell by the language they employ, the scorn they heep upon liberals and the educated vote.
You don't get that degree of hatred from McCain's supporters and he is actually the one on the other side here.
Their own words convict them.
Now I suppose they could be a repeat of the "New Left" idea, people posing as Hillary supporters to make her supporters look bad, but I haven't seen much evidence of Hillary's supporters distancing themselves from this sort of thing.
-
@Ethel M
Ethel M: "Just to clarify how completely subjective your take is you should put "even when she's right she sounds wrong TO ME." And for all those who think misogyny hasn't played a part in the coverage of Hillary Clinton imagine a man being called, "icy" "cold" "shrill". Imagine saying the country doesn't want to watch Dodd (same age as Clinton) turn into a old man. Imagine a 72-year old woman being able to run for president. Imagine someone saying about McCain or Obama, "even when he's right he sounds wrong.""
The sins of the right-wing talk-show jackasses are not always the sins of the rest of us.
I am an Obama supporter but the sexist comments against Hillary Clinton piss me off almost as much as they piss you off.
-
OhioGirl
The Farrakhan answer was nuanced at best, insincere at worst. I'm not convinced.
-
10:49 AM Anon
What would be strong enough? Calling Farakhan the anti-Christ and offering to burn him at the stake?
-
Person
No, but I would expect the same consistent and ongoing contempt if David Duke ever decided to endorse Clinton. Duke and Farrakhan are no different from one another.
(Now look at how ridiculous a notion that is, someone who is a true hate monger supporting a Democrat...)
-
Translation of factcheck2's post (above)
Translation of factcheck2's post:
"This article is sexist poop, and Obama supporters are also sexist poop-heads. They are sexist, misogynist, anti-women, chauvinist, mean, vile, duty-heads.
Hillary Clinton gets asked the tough questions first because they are treating Obama like a little helpless girly-man. They know Obama can't talk without Clinton to show little Baby Bama how to talk. If Obama went first he'd be all "goo goo ga ga I don't know anything waaaa I want my mommy Hillary!"
Why do they ask Clinton about her taxes? Why don't they ask Obama about Tony Rezko? Why oh why? I smell a conspiracy -- a big, stinky, conspira-poopie! Obama probably deals drugs on the side! He is evil, I just know it....I feel it in my gut.
Obama's horrible evil conspiracy with Tony Rezko will drag him down and he won't be elected dog-catcher. Also, Karl Rove is involved with Obama somehow. Again, I just feel it in my gut!
For more on this stupid garbage, and other inane stupid idiotic lame ramblings by me, please click on my name, factcheck2, (also known as Rosemary Regello, of San Francisco, California), and go to my website, The City Edition, where I am trying to make a living selling advertising for my half-assed newspaper that is barely worth using to pick up dog crap, let alone reading."
-
10:56 AM Anon
Ann Coulter, has endorsed Hillary.
Farakhan looks like a warrior for tolerance next to Ann Coulter.
-
Miscellany
To meltthough who writes that Obama is not going to commit to public finacing of the general election until McCain has. Well, McCain has. He signed the same pledge as Obama did.
That's interesting, as McCain's formally announced he's going to forgo public financing. Well, if the FEC will let him. See, there's something called the "Internet," where you can look all this up, if you'd like.
Anon @ 10:45-- it seems like people (not just you) really want Obama to get more emotional about something-- Farrakhan is only the latest I've seen. Not only is that not really what I've seen as his style, I think it's dangerous for a black politician in this country to come off as 'angry'-- as Hillary Clinton has been labeled 'shrill,' so he could be labeled 'angry' with a negative connotation that would never be labeled at a white male politician. (Also note that people generally don't ask white politicians about the white fringe.)
(Of course, your issue may be as simple as really, really hating Farrakhan.)