Letters to the Editor
-
I love the "Mr. Christopher" nonsense. Like your a grammar school teacher speaking sternly to a student.
Yes, I think shooting at the First Lady would be considered an issue of national security. You don't?
You really think she can blatantly lie, make up a scenario of bullets flying, a rush for protection, and no time for an official welcome...and then have the clip run of her arrival: no bullets, hugging a child, and a big reception...and furthermore have further information released that at no point on the trip did such an event occur..and her candidacy not be over? Can this be called "misspeaking"? Or a comment "taken out of context"? Sorry, no. It was a lie. A flat out lie.
Clearly, just like Bush, she twists international events to suit her political agenda.
She's over. Over.
-
@ weeping for brunnhilde
I think you're completely right.
-
The GOP should watch its back.
The truth is that Mrs. Clinton is toast. However, every day that passes while her campaign throws barbs at Senator Obama is hurting the Democrats chances of taking back the White House, and also keep control of the House and Senate. It’s way past time for Mrs. Clinton to get off of her entitlement campaign and look to the good of the country (if she possibly could get over herself).
I’d caution the Republicans, however, not to dig too deeply into Senator Obama’s past because Senator McCain has a massive closet of forgotten sins and who knows what else waiting to be dragged into the light of day. Let’s not forget the Keating Five or the fact that Senator McCain was cheating on his old wife before he married the current one (ala Rudy). The Senate has already criticized Mr. McCain for questionable conduct. Do we want another tainted man in the White House? Just because George Bush has lowered the bar into the gutter doesn’t mean we have to leave it there.
-
@spencer911
Bingo!
-
warrior dowager
There's a qualitative difference between smart and cunning. Clinton is cunning, and not quite what anybody would call smart.
-
Check It Out
The Limbaugh story is mostly myth. He came out with that story after it was exposed that some republicans had been doing just the opposite of what Limbaugh now claims. Republicans have been voting in large numbers for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC open primaries, and gaming the DEMOCRATIC caucuses from day one.
Limbaugh is using reverse psychology on you to cover up.
The REPUBLICANS have been trying to choose the weakest DEMOCRATIC candidate to run against in November. And also to prevent the possibility of a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama DREAM TEAM match up.
I am really surprised the media has not picked this fact up with all their experts, and analyst. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. This is why Obama has mostly only been able to win red state caucuses, and primaries. And no big blue states primaries.
If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the Republican vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate.
Hillary Clinton has actually already won the democratic nomination if you remove the republican vote fraud. Does this really surprise anyone after the 2000 and 2004 elections. :-(
They have no respect for the constitution, or the democratic process. They have no SHAME!!!
jacksmith...
-
@ jack smith
Evidence?
-
@jacksmith
Yes, please, cite some sources, since I am witness to the exact opposite (from the inside).
Oh, you don't need to back up your last assertion, that one's unimpeachable. My party currently sucks. But the rest of your thesis...where's that come from?
-
jacksmith
You don't know jack jack..."the legend of Limbaugh looms large!" Only to those who looks up to him like you jack, only to a lying mental midget like you who couldn't con himself out of the cardboard confines of a box of crackerjacks. Jack be nimble, Jack be quick, Jack you're a has been, a sold out prick. Go love up on Limbaugh, you're losing!
-
@ AJ
May I ask, out of curiosity, what you mean by "inside?"
-
What is the DEM plan for MCCAIN? No plan? Oh yeah -- GOP rules, the Dems are just straw (wo)men.
I like getting a look at the Republican playbook. But honestly, I'm tired of us Dems being sitting ducks. How are we going to ATTACK the GOP?
Apparently --though depressingly predictably-- 2/3 of the country is stupid enough to think John McCain would be just fine as president. That is a huge problem.
Dean needs to sack it up and tell both Penn and Plouffe to stop making Rush Limbaugh's job easier and focus both barrels on McCain and Bush. Just as Rev. Wright's foaming mug is everywhere, so should McCain's bear hug of Dubya be plastered across the Internets for the strong message to take hold: that if you liked Dubya, you'll LOVE John McCain.
What is depressing here is that this year was supposed to be a cakewalk for the Dems. Sometimes I wonder if the Illuminati just invented the Dems to make it look like we had a two party system: everyone's in on the joke but the public. By this logic, '08 is a great joke -- let's run McCain vs. HRC or a biracial guy whose name reminds people of Saddam and bin Laden!
Hilarious!
-
2 cent
I wonder if the Illuminati just invented the Dems
Yes. Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton belong to this very secret society called "The Family." And now they are in bed with Melon Scaife, that funder of the vast right wing conspiracy.
-
@weeping for brunnhilde
My affiliation with the Party locally (DC/MD/VA) for many years. (From this you can maybe understand why I empathize with Obama re: Rev. Wright).
-
Evidence? Here are some state by state exit Polls
Well, there is some raw numbers in the exit poll data: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890/
I've been waiting for someone to volunteer to comb through the entire set of these numbers. For example, in Mississippi, 12 % of the vote was by republicans with a 75/25 Hillary/Obama split, while in Iowa 3% of the vote was republicans with a 10/44 Hillary/Obama split.
What's missing the is intent of the voters. Are they voting for a candidate, and would vote the same in the fall, or are they voting against?
-
yes, and legitimately so
"If Clinton beats the odds and wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans will say she stole it."
It's not just whether the republicans will do so, criticizing the role of the superdelegates, but whether or not criticizing the the superdelegates is intrinically just-- and it is.
They exist to prevent somebody whom party hierarchy disapprove of from gaining the nomination. It's as plain and simple as that, however reluctant democrats maybe to acknowledge this openly. And while it may be too late to fix the democratic electoral system this go around, even if Obama gets the nomination-- and he probably will-- the problem wont go away by itself and they'll need to fix it eventually, preferably before 2012.