Letters to the Editor
-
Obama would appoint Republicans to cabinet
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3466823.ece
"Obama is hoping to appoint cross-party figures to his cabinet such as Chuck Hagel, the Republican senator for Nebraska and an opponent of the Iraq war, and Richard Lugar, leader of the Republicans on the Senate foreign relations committee...
"Obama believes he will be able to neutralise McCain by drawing on the expertise of independent Republicans such as Hagel and Lugar, who is regarded by Obama as a potential secretary of state.
Larry Korb, a defence official under President Ronald Reagan who is backing Obama, said: 'By putting a Republican in the Pentagon and the State Department you send a signal to Congress and the American people that issues of national security are above politics.'"
-
LOL! As if Rezko and Obama's affair is "vague and unproven"
What I was trying to say, I guess ineffectively, was that if we dismiss the vague unproven stuff about Clinton (and I think we should) then we have to also dismiss the vague unproven stuff about Rezko, at least for now.
LOL. I think the kook-aide drinkers have taken the Obamateur's audacity a bit too seriously.
8 years of a multi-million dollar investigation by a partisan hack found Hillary definitively not guilty.
Meanwhile Obama's Rezko sits in jail for fraud and embezzlement : including the property he bought for the Obamater's who personally asked him to make the deal for him.
-
doc5467
The reason I pasted my "gratuitous advice" post is so that you could re-read it and realize that it has nothing to do with the the subject of this thread whatsoever. It was in a response to an article about the "right age" at which for a woman to have a child and the impact of the decision - whatever age has on her life. I was simply relaying something that I've though about for a while and something that I've talked to younger mothers about. But I'd love to see how you can link this post to the Obama/Clinton campaign and chhabili's conversion.
Can we agree to differ? When I read chhabili's posts I something different - you maintain that chhabili's reasons for switching are based solely on anti-Clintonism rather than embrace of Obama and all that he stands for. Yes, the anti-Clintonism is there but I read a lot of stuff in her posts that talked about reasons to support Obama (other than anyone but Hill). Why are you so obsessed about chhabili's conversion, anyway? Do you believe that this is some nefarious plot of the Obama campaign? An Obama right from the start person is tasked with pretending to be undecided - sort of likes Hillary, seems to be v. against Obama, throws in a bit about Edwards and then reads an article that sets her to thinking about Hillary, she starts to think about all the negatives, takes a closer look at Obama and then, lo and behold, she is gung ho for Obama. I'm not into conspiracy theories but maybe you are. So, please, why don't you just come out and say that's where you're coming from!!
-
@pantanal
Just a quick response to your three claims about Obama's superiorty.
1. "far better decision maker than Hillary" Perhaps you could mention for us some of the important decisions the man has made so far which give you this conviction? Can you, in fact, name a single one? When in his brief public life has he been faced with a tough, controversial issue upon which he has had to make an actual decision as an officeholder? I don't know of any. So why is he "far better" at making tough decisions than Clinton, who's had to make one hell of a lot of them?
(I know he's taken POSITIONS on a lot of things, in situations where he has no responsibility for any decisions made--like his opposition to the 2002 resolution. Hell, I was myself more strongly and vocally opposed than my state senator. Thing is, neither he nor I had to make any DECISION about it whatever. Note the often reffed comment he made later when he said he couldn't say with certainty what his DECISION would have been had he been faced with it in the Senate at the time.)
2.-you claim Obama is "less self-centered and arrogant" than Mrs. Clinton. I can only say, we all see what we wish to see, perhaps. This is a man who lets none of his fans touch him or come close, who haughtily refuses any reporter's questions on the trail, who told Senator Clinton, "you're likeable enough, Hillary", who mounted an entire presidential campaign when he had barely arrived at the Senate, who promised us Illinoisans he would serve out his term when we elected him, whose friends admit he's "stand-offish" a lot of the time, who bases his appeal on rock-star revivals centering around himself, who says "the time has come", "WE are who we have been waiting for," etc. etc. I know, it's just your opinion and your call, and of course subjective, but geez--less self-centered and arrogant? wow.
3. you say he "cares about the nation more than his own ambition." I can only say again, that's a subjective call at best. I see absolutely no evidence of the truth of that statement in what I know of him personally, what I hear him say, how I see him act, or what his group of advisors say and do. If you're right, maybe he should quit his campaign and for the good of the nation allow a far more qualified and talented person to be nominated. Now, THAT would be proof of your claim.
All in all, you do try to stay reasonable and thoughtful and I will try to do so too. But I wish your view of Obama weren't so colored by your distaste for Clinton. Each claim says little about Obama and more about your view of her.
-
The Shameful Actions of The Obama Campaign Disenfranchised Over ½ Million Alabama Voters
The Shameful Actions of The Obama Campaign Disenfranchised Over ½ Million Alabama Voters
In a move that resembles the classic “business as usual” Washington, D.C. politics, Senator Obama Campaign disenfranchised over a half-million voters who voted in the Alabama Democrat Primary by throwing out the half-million ballots which selected fifty delegate candidates on Super Tuesday. At the state Democrat Party meeting this past Saturday, the Obama Camp selected all twelve delegates to the convention without a single vote being cased. People went to the polls in record numbers and cased their votes and expected their voices to be heard. The Obama Camp move ignored their voices.
How can a candidate, who runs a campaign about empowering voters, take such an action, that disenfranchised so many, and contradict the central principal of his entire campaign? The Obama Camp talks about changing the way Washington dose business, but it is just business as usual for them. Their action just serves as evidence that the Camp Obama has played us all for fools. His campaign is a fake. He is just another Washington politician selling a pipe dream that his own campaign is not even living up too. This is shameful. Shame on the Obama Campaign. You should practice what you preach. In your own words, you should “say what you mean, and mean what you say.”
WTE