Letters to the Editor
-
Demonization Of Clinton
The personalization of Obama campaign's of Senator Clinton makes more sense in terms of the demonization of Senator Clinton more and more from them.
I ask Salon.com to investigate these matters more thoroughly. We should all be privvy to the "inside story" the MSNBC staff seems to have, and is willing to let "drop."
I think Senator Clinton should ask Obama for an explanation. If he was involved in both of these incidents ... by that, I mean ... did he authorize the discussion with the Canadians and if so, what was his intended message to the Canadians ... and, do the views and characterization of the Foreign Policy Advisor to the Obamas represent what the Obama's feel about Clinton.
It's time to ask the press why they have not got to the bottom of the NAFTA incident, and they sure as hell should ask about the "monster" views. If Obama and Michelle are really of that view, then that explains the greater and greater demonization process in the attacks on Senator Clinton. Finally, the statement made about Senator Clinton ... "when she feels bad about herself ..." has never been explained, either.
I want to know what the Obamas think they know.
It is one thing to disagree with a candidate: it moves into the psychodynamic realm when one is perceived as "a monster." Does this mean Senator Obama and his wife actually have allowed their views to set a demonization of Senator Clinton???
The economic advisor is being castigated as the guy who went off the reservation, but one has to ask: why did he talk with the Canadians in the first place? If he is the economic advisor, has he had the ear of Obama, and did he propose the notion to Obama himself.
In any campaign hierarchy, but also, in an Administration, a person high enough to be considered a key "economic advisor" would have run the idea to Obama. No in between individuals.
Did the idea emanate from him to Obama?
Or, did Obama agree with the idea because he wanted to assure the Canadians that his anti-NAFTA talk was just talk. Or, as the Canadian advisor said: "Political posturing?"
That represents old style politics. It also represents a flat out lie by Obama. Not a misstatement: a flat out lie. If he misspoke, then why has he not acknowledged he made a misstatement and yes, now, on camera, admit, it was an error ... IN JUDGEMENT???
Additionally, considering that Obama lost handily in Florida and Michigan, and the Michiganders and Floridians have had enough of a "penalty" because of their state, why not just accept the losses and go on?
The two delegations could be penalized, but the raw vote could count. That seems fair, since the delegates are one number of say, less than 200, and the votes of the people constitute a total in the thousands, and, in Florida, million +. The voters themselves should matter, and if that amounts to a proportionate distribution, then Obama gets the benefit of their showing in Florida. Unless it was clearly stated to all Michiganders that "uncommitted" was a way to make a vote for Obama, and that the state election commission made that clear ... then Obama has to, again, look at poor JUDGEMENT.
In any legal case, when an attorney for a person ultimately convicted or plea bargained as having committed a "crime," the appeals system does not normally consider "bad advice" a reason to overturn a verdict. It must be egregious.
Obama was bragging that he had all kinds of Clinton advisors on his campaign staff. I don't really know who they are, but one would assume if they had actually been on the Clinton staff, they were competent. It would therefore serve as the same base line for whether Obama made a bad move in Michigan or not: he did it. He should live by his mistake, and the people of Michigan and Florida should have their votes counted.
This would either bring Clinton even with Obama in delegates, or take her in the lead. He then gets the advantage of being the "underdog" again. That's the booby prize. She gets the advantage in that she has consistently stood up for the idea that she will introduce a motion to count Floridians and Michiganders votes.
Please, be objective enough to run down the origins of the Canadian NAFTA fiasco.
Similarly, if, as Andrea Mitchell just implied, the Foreign Affairs Advisor IS a good friend of "the Obamas," then once again, does the term "Monster" attach to their view of Hillary Clinton?
Senator Obama should be asked to declare whether she represents his and his wife's view. If so, then why is she a "monster?" What do they know (and Andrea Mitchell, I might add, makes it clear she agrees), about Hillary Clinton that hundreds of generals and military officers don't know.
The attacks on Clinton have, it seems, attempted to "demonize" her lately. For a campaign that heard Obama say: "Well, when Hillary's feeling bad about herself, she attacks me ..." this connotes a true personal and degrading bias. It implies PMS, or, a true psychological tendency to portray Clinton as dysfunctional at the personal level ... that also goes to ... are those characterizations ... i.e., "monster" and "feels bad about herself so she attacks poor Barack ..."
MSNBC and most of the rest of the "cable news" network reporters don't ever ask the significant questions, in my opinion. I can certainly be wrong: I am very biased towards the Clintons, so that's fair. However, the probing questions don't ever seem to get asked.
If Obama and his wife really feel Hillary Clinton is "a monster," then the rest of us ought to be let in on the story. We, the American people (including myself), should understand that concept -- "she's a monster," or, "she tends to lose her self-esteem when a man trumps her publicly, or "she loses a primary," or, "is having a hard time getting her message."
i
-
@thingswesaid
and he's the one they are all hoping will NOT answer the phone.
That is so wrong I don't even know where to start, but how about starting at the fact that Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the insurgents out there will LOVE having any of them with their finger on the button, be it McCain, Hillary, or Obama, because NONE of them understand the problem and refuse to debate or discuss the issue directly or honestly, instead relying on the "Islamofascists hate us for the NH Primary and Women who go to work and wear short skirts" bs.
Al Qaeda doesn't care which of the three get into office, because all three will do exactly what al Qaeda wants, which is to get involved sticking our fat fingers into every piss and little country on the planet, pissing off the citizens and helping OBL recruit. Nothing serves al Qaeda better than our current foreign policy, because every time we bomb some nothing little country it helps recruit new blood to the cause, and none of the major candidates have any intention of making any changes in this regard.
The only candidate Osama doesn't want in the White House is Ron Paul because he is the only candidate that even understands the problem. Ron Paul is the only one who honestly discusses and understands what the CIA means when it uses the term "blowback", the rest of them will keep Spreading Democracy via bombing scary people, i.e. hypocricy, which is exactly what al Qaeda needs to inspire its followers and recruit more of them.