Letters to the Editor
-
scientifically impossible
"Obama is ... like George Bush and just as unqualified to lead this country"
-
It's been 20 years since we've had a president who wasn't named Bush or Clinton.
so? It's 232 years since we've had a president who wasn't male.
-
It's a Dynasty
i>"...Bill Clinton has run (oh, and *won*, rather handily) exactly twice...."
Actually, Bill won with pluralities, not majorities...had it not been for Ross Perot it is arguable that Bush Papi might have had a second term.
The poster's point is about a Bush or Clinton being on the winning presidential ticket for 28 straight years. That, indeed, is not healthy.
-
@homefly - Clinton's strength
In response to a post stating, "Hillary Clinton is indomitable and the Democrats best chance to take back the White House. Go, Hillary!"
You said: "Go ahead with that magical thinking. There's no data to back up that assertion. None."
Isn't it magical thinking to believe you can quantify indomitability?
Further, I attended a Clinton rally in Austin Monday night. The woman simply radiated energy and strength and enthusiasm. This was her third appearance that day: she spent the morning and early afternoon in Ohio courting voters, then had two rallies in Austin that night. She's 60 years old and has faced hostile, even rabid press for months. She's been under the gun for weeks and outfunded by Obama. She's been publicly advised by John "Benedict Arnold" Kerry that she should just bow out and leave the stage to the young pretender. And yet she keeps going. If this doesn't qualify as indomitable, I don't know what does.
-
zzz05
Nice straw man...er... straw woman argument there.
(sorry, couldn't resist)
-
zzz05
Yeah, we've had far too many non-caucasion presidents in that time period. Let's give whity a chance for once, why don't we?
(Not my position, of course. Just responding to an absurdity with an inanity)
-
Fine
I've given ample proof of a large multi-national corporation , the Carlyle Group, with political ties to Bush I and Clinton I, along with Rumsfeld and others, and $1.8 billon of borrowed Saudi money. That's a bank statement not a conspiracy.
You can check Wikipedia if you want. That's why they used to have a website, for the group itself, nobody ever bothered to check it. Went there once the counter was at like 40. Think they finally took the site down but they really didn't need to bother.
This in and of itself is not a problem. ExxonMobil is a large multi-national corporation. The problem comes when the same people who control the financial power of the corporation control the political power of the country. This is the concentration of too much power in too few hands. Precisely what the Founding Fathers (along with the Founding Mothers, Abigail Adams played a large role as will thankfully be shown in the new HBO miniseries John Adams) warned against and sought to protect us from. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The Constitution is a living breathing document. It CAN be taken down. If George W. Bush has taught us anything it's this.
If you're always running for office chances are you wont' get caught. You can dismiss any charges during an election season as political and the rest of the time you can hide out well enough to dodge it. This is why politicians get so nervous when things go to trial. They're all lawyers and know this is the one place they CAN get caught. Hence Jack Abramhoff scaring the living daylights out of D.C.
There's a reason everyone who comes out of this says it's a dirty, illegal, immoral business. And then we want to pretend all of the current politicians aren't dirty.
What the Clintons and Bushes are attempting has NEVER been done before. If people honestly can't see the problem with having the same two families in control for 28 straight years (especially when they're now not ALWAYS counting votes in Florida in 2000 and Ohio 2004), which means you're not really running a democratic process than I can't explain it to you. Obviously you have your own beliefs, which you are fully entitled to, and I'm not saying they're not right. Just saying I've repeatedly explained the problems with 2 families cornering all the control in a political system. Where I will split hairs with everyone is this is precisely what a dynasty is. There is no other word for it, and to call it something else is disenguous.
-
Who's Complaining?
"...If the uninformed nominate Obama John McCain and the republican's will destroy him with his thin skin he can't take the heat...."
"Thin-skinned?" I think not. Who's complained about "biased media" and "misogyny" and a matter so trivial as "who seems to get called on first." Obama, prior to today, hasn't uttered son much as a peep--nothing about racism, nothing about Hillary Clinton's halting acknowledgement of Obama "[saying] he's a Christian," despite the fact that the two attend Congressional Prayer Breakfasts, together, and next to nothing about that photo ostensibly circulated by the Clinton campaign of Obama in Somali muslim-like head garb. You couldn't turn on the tv without Ms. Clinton caterwauling, on news and entertainment shows, alike, about unfair treatment. All this while attempting to slime Obama and his attempt-to-stand-above-the fray campaign.
Now, exactly who is it that's "thin-skinned?"
Now, we're going to get a Pig-fest in the mud, which is, apparently, exactly what one candidate wanted.
John McCain is sittin' pretty
-
@ethics_professor
Al Gore on the second ballot is what a lot of us are hoping for. It might just happen.
--That would be amazing. Can you imagine McCain trying to beat Gore/Obama in a general election?!
-
@KateTex
I was a little flummoxed at first by your assertion that Hillary had taken Hays County, since it is true that Obama does get a lot of support from college students. However, since I grew up in San Marcos I'm very aware that TSU (it will always be SWT to me) is an island unto itself. I checked the Precinct Convention results for Hays County, and with 41% of precincts reporting Obama is still winning that county by 65%/34%. My bet will be that he'll hold that lead.
I caucused in an upper middle class suburban neighborhood last night. I caucused there 4 years ago, and half elementary school cafeteria was filled with Republicans, and us 4 lonely Democrats were shoved into a corner. It was humbling. Last night was something completely different. There were hundreds of people in the room. Out of a room full of mostly college educated, multi-racial, multi-generational, middle to upper income voters, we went for Obama 270+ vs. Hillary's 72. What you have to say about Obama's college student support may still be true, but he does have a pretty solid coalition of reliable voters in my neck of the woods.
For myself, I'm more of a party loyalist. I voted for Obama because he's ahead in the pledged delegate count, and I want to see a quick winner so that we won't have to see the party divided and bloodied in the process, among other things. Hillary would undoubtedly commit fratricide in order to secure the nomination, and to me that's speaks very little to her character and loyalty to the party. I really don't care that she's "indomitable", it's that attribute that could very well hurt the Democratic party's chances in the fall.