Letters to the Editor
-
Edwards
would be better used as the new AG.
-
Temporary Repreive
Hill Rotten Clinton won a temporary repreive this week only because Obamarama hit a speed bump this week with his weird NAFTA wink wink somewhat revelation.
Next week Obamsa will probably be to back as usual, wiping Her Rotten Clinton all over the pavement.
-
So you won, so drop out -
In 2000 George W. Bush won while losing the vote. Hillary can only win the Democratic nomination by losing the vote. She had best not do to the Democratic Party what W. did to America. No more politicians, please, who don't listen to the voters' votes.
A good question to ask all candidates is, "If your election is near a tie, would you ask for a fair recount to make sure you were elected by a majority of the people?" It never occurred to me before W. that this needed to be asked. She's losing. She lost. Live with it. Move on. We need to win this presidential election, for us and our country.
Best -
(More, for free: google "Rabid Fanatic" +"Monty Johnston")
-
Clinton Tax Returns
Isn't it time we know who his funding her campaign via her 5 million loan? From whom has Bill been bringing home the bacon for the past eight years?
-
my pet peeve
Is how the media has joined lock step in saying Clinton won three states last night...that she wone RI, OH, and Texas. Full Stop.
Umm...she didn't win "texas", she won the "texas primary". They're still counting the votes in the Caucus dontcha know? I don't buy any arguments about it being said for the sake of brevity, it's not that hard to say "Hillary wins big in Ohio and Rhode Island, and leads in Texas which is still counting"
I for one simply refuse to acknowledge anyone who from this point forward talks about media bias against Hillary. It's bunk. The Media are only concerned in prolonging this ratings bonanza...that much is clear.
-
Give it up, Walt
Lots of snarky sour grapes here from Shapiro. Anybody notice how hard Clinton has been running against the Media, and how well it worked?
-
There is still much more to come
It aint ending.
You got big states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina.
as well as Mississippi, Indiana, West Virginia, Oregon, Montana, North Dakota... and more.....
This is a long way from over....Problem is...everyone is sick to death of the drama.
-
No such thing as media bias
I for one simply refuse to acknowledge anyone who from this point forward talks about media bias against Hillary. It's bunk. The Media are only concerned in prolonging this ratings bonanza...that much is clear.
you are absolutely correct. the idea of the "media" being biased toward one candidate, in the sense that they are actively rooting for one candidate over the other, is abusrd. the media is in the business of generating revenue. negativity sells. scandal sells. controversy sells. if there is no negativity, scandal, or controversy, they make one up (see, e.g., tony rezko and the native kenyan dress). up until this point, it was easier for the "media" to crap on hillary because she has a much bigger toilet than obama, i.e. far more skeletons in her closet and a much larger demographic of people who despise her. so they fed the hungry masses with meat cut from her flabby-thigh's-worth of "experience."
but that only lasts so long, and hillary wisely started crying foul that she was being blasted while obama was being treated with kid gloves. what's that you say, hillary? we have a controversy on our hands!!! fantastic, says the media!!! we'll run with this completely contrived "controversy" that we're too nice to obama and too mean to hillary!!! she used that strategy as well as outright lying about obama to gather her 11th hour (re)surge.
and the hilljack voters, ones who remarkably had not made up their mind until last week, fell for it in droves. not to mention all of the texas republicans who had no reason to vote for mccain following herr limbaugh and voting for the most beatable candidate, hillary.
but she doesn't give a rip. she doesn't care if she gets votes from people who are uninformed, misinformed, underinformed, or just plain stupid. she just wants their vote. that's a leader we want, america! someone who is not interested in the good of the country, and only interested in the good of herself. way to go!
-
Is Obama starting to turn people off?
I haven't been following this all too closely. I can't stand any of the talking heads on cable, but I catch bits of the candidates appearances on the tube from time to time.
Obama seems to be taking himself a bit too seriously these days. And the Anointed Savior Who Will Restore America's Standing In The World shtick is getting a bit tiresome. He's coming across as a little too morally superior, a little too sanctimonious, a little too "I know what's good for you", which Americans don't like one bit.
A snippet from his Houston speech: something along the lines of "My job as Commander-In-Chief will be to keep YOU safe." Uh-oh! Superman's job is to save the people on the train that's about to hurtle off the bridge. Your job would be to keep us safe, keep the Nation safe, however you want to put it. You are one of us, not above and beyond. Very wrong tone.
My two cents. I could be wrong.
And puh-lease, whoever wins, don't utter the magic tragic words "How hard it is to put your kids through college." The slice of the population who can pay their kids way through college is pretty small, and screams I Am Out Of Touch With The Lives Of Ordinary Americans.
-
nitpick
Walt, it's a perfectly good English sentence, posted at Salon with perfect punctuation--not a run-on sentence at all.
Just sayin' . . .
-
Joint ticket?
British media today (BBC, Daily Mail) are reporting today that Hillary hinted at a joint ticket in a US TV interview this morning.
How come Salon has not got this yet?
-
Either one would do fine by themselves
There's no need for the two candidates to combine into a single ticket in order to win. That would be fine, if they both wanted to, but there are plenty of other qualified Democrats hanging around. Having John Edwards on board (remember him?) would shore up either ticket perfectly well.
Either candidate would do fine against McCain. Their greatest liability, frankly, is their supporters — people who believe the mythology of Clinton as more experienced or Obama as less controversial.
In other words, you.
This isn't an interview for a summer job at a local ad firm. It's a presidential election. "Resume" has never mattered when it comes to who's a good president and who isn't.
And anyone who believes that Obama is somehow going to escape being the target of the right-wing hate machine is naive, pure and simple. The right didn't hate Hillary Clinton a priori, out of some peculiar quality of her personality. She became a target, along with her husband, when they became popular and effective national political figures.
Obama will be the target of the exact same process when and if he makes the cut. In fact, you'll know he's truly succeeded in becoming a threat when they turn the hoses on him. Think of it as the ultimate compliment, in a sick sort of way.
So given that, it's necessary for Democrats to start admitting that in the end their preferences are emotional, not logical, and all the other crap we're making up about which candidate is more electable is basically just rationalization.
Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about emotional decision-making in electing a president. But it's important to understand that anyone who truly supports American liberalism and the Democratic agenda cannot honestly say that there's enough difference between the two candidates to warrant voting against the other one should their favorite not win.
McCain is meandering around the right wing like a drunk sailor looking for a place to piss. Actually voting for that guy over the "other" Democrat out of some perception that McCain and your preferred choice have more in common (other than white skin or a dick) is the single most ridiculous thing I've ever heard in American politics. Seriously. It takes the cake. It even beats people voting for Nader because they felt that there was no difference between Gore and Bush.
Maybe it's fitting that now, during the greatest resurgence of liberal populism since Kennedy, American liberals (so called) would find a way to undertake an equivalently monumental act of stupidity. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but my own naivete is such that I continue to hold out hope that Democrats aren't so afraid of success that they'll commit suicide rather than win.
Here's hoping.