Letters to the Editor
-
@WES Yeah, because none of us want hope or change....
"It's not ending it's just the beginning....Even if Obama wins the nomination and miraculously wins the general and then his hope and change thingy falls flat on it's face, Hillary will come after him, the sitting president, again in the 2012 primary."
And what will Hillary do with her power, if not change us from the course of war and destruction that she and Bush set us upon? We should just bow down to Clinton now since she and her nasty worldview will ultimately triumph anyway?
And I thought I was cynical.
-
We Have To
Watch our left wing as closely as the GOP has to watch it's right..... Change is in the air and people are upset and looking for something new, so our left wing says---Okay, here's a young inexperienced black guy with a pastor who says God Damn America. Jump on board everyone.
It's kinda funny really.
-
Hillary IS the attack plan
Mikey. Snap out of it, boy. You must be having too many nightmares about the EEEEEVIIIIIIL Republican "ATTACK MACHINE." BOO! If Hillary is your nominee, we don't have to do anything except pick out new drapes. No blacks are gonna vote for her. John McCain won't have to spend 5 bucks. Right Mikey? Are you following me here? BOO! Idiot. Hey Salon, how about dumping stupid, and hiring me?
-
Dirty Tricks Are Not Necessary
"They'll say Clinton will do or say anything to win, and that she can't be trusted"
And they won't have to work very hard to prove it.
hillary's ridiculous claim about Bosnia and sniper fire, which she now explains as having "mispoke" is one of many examples that confirm the statement above.
The Bosnia comment wasn't a matter of mis-speaking. It was a lie. hillary's explanation that it was a matter of mis-speaking, is a second lie.
Why would someone tell such lies? She wants to win.
If hillary's mind believes the story is true, she has psychological problems. If she knows it to be false, she confirms the statement above.
-
Democracy is not leftist.
The Constitution is not leftist.
The Bill of Rights is not leftist.
Sane international policy is not leftist.
Clinton and W.E.S. despise American values, not leftism.
-
@ mdlewis
Very convincing analysis.
"Don't know that anyone will agree with me, but I actually think Obama has further proven his electability over the past few weeks. He dealt with a major blow to his campaign with dignity and integrity, and managed to twist it into 35 minutes of free air time in which he tackled race in a powerful and unique way while staying on message and pushing a little Democratic populism as well."
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
-
Why can't we all just get along?
One thing is for sure, Hillary Clinton is a patriot. She's toiled in paid (and unpaid) government jobs for a lifetime. For the most part, she made very little money compared to her potential in the marketplace - her motivation was to make this country a better place.
Barack Obama doesn't seem so horrible either, although he has nowhere near Hillary Clinton's record for public service. But both of them beg to serve.
It looks like they will both emerge from this process bruised and damaged. And it looks again as though a Republican will capture the presidency. I need a new political party - one that can unite behind one candidate. One that, once in control of both houses of congress, can actually accomplish something. One that will recognize the real problems in this country and that will spend their time trying to fix them.
Or I could just stay away from the polls.....
-
NotOrbitBoy
I have to keep saying this because I think it's critical: even were Clinton's story to be true, the real question is: so what?
How does evading sniper fire demonstrate the experience requisite of a commander-in-chief?
This is the angle of the story that we should be discussing.
Lie or no lie, the initial claim should never have gotten by without someone asking her, point blank, "And how, exactly, is this anecdote relevant to your argument?"
I'd love to hear an answer to that.
Honestly.
-
Flying over reality at 30,000 feet
This article overlooks an awful lot to make some kind of mysterious point about Hillary's vulnerability in the general election. Conspicuously missing from the piece is any commentary on the Clintons' sudden marriage of convenience with the very people who make up the VRWC. Just yesterday our "vetted" candidate sat down with one Richard Mellon Scaife for a friendly chat about Reverend Wright. In the run-up to Texas and Ohio, Bill took some time out of his schedule to call into Rush Limbaugh's radio show. And the Hillary campaign and its supporters regularly and cravenly reference right-wing media (Newsmax, WorldNet Daily, the American Spectator, National Review) to prop up their specious arguments against Obama. I would ask Mike Madden about this new and wholly opportunistic vulnerability in the general election: who will be able to reasonably defend them against the fusillade of attacks from the VRWC when they themselves are now part of it? Every single complaint from the Clintons about right-wing attacks against them will ring hollow. Couple that with waning support among Democrats and you've got the basic outlines of a resounding defeat in November. Some Faustian bargain, that.
-
"For the most part, she made very little money compared to her potential in the marketplace"
The Clintons have made over $30 million dollars in the past eight years. Not chump change. Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million dollars.
Voting for the Patirot Act and wearing a flag lapel pin do not equal patriot.
-
McCain's mouth
In the unlikely event that Hillary gets the nomination, she can sit back and wait for McCain to start talking--with both feet in his mouth.
-
@ W.E.S.
Actually, with facile "analysis" like that, you're the one who's kind of funny.
-
I'll Laugh
You weep.
-
@ W.E.S.
I apologize for snapping like that. I'm giving in to my frustration.
I snapped, though, because I'm trying to engage you in an actual exchange and you've not responded.
I'm reaching out here, you know?
-
@ W.E.S.
What are you doing here?
Do you have something to contribute or not?
-
The Two Hillarys
If Clinton is the nominee, the GOP won't need to "say" she stole the nomination, the facts will bear that out. For the process to make any sense at all, there are really only two reasons for a candidate to stay in the process: If there's still a mathematical way for the candidate to win, or if there are platforms or issues that the candidate wants in the discussion. Hillary's only options here are some kind of hijacking of the process, OR an interest in so damaging Obama (and so well arming McCain) that she gets a do-over in 2012.
Our bigger problem, if she does succeed in somehow twisting the will of the Democratic primary voters, is that the *real* "buyers remorse" that will come into play will be when people find out that Hillary "the Candidate" bears little resemblance to Hillary "the legislator." What her "experience" *does* show us is that she is a vindictive, conniving and divisive leader with longer enemies and friends lists than Nixon -- witness the pathetic attacks on Bill Richardson this past weekend, or the idiotic "actions/experience over words" argument she's been making (and the press, including Salon.com, has been buying!) even though the essence of any campaign, INCLUDING HILLARY'S, is always, and only, about promises and proposals. The "actions" come once a person is actually holding the office and empowered to work within the system to make things happen.
For me, this *isn't* about worrying about a return to her husbands personal excesses in the 1990s ... its about Hillary's own track record when it comes to the rights and needs of the working class. In my book, a decade of shilling for the likes of Sam Walton (Walmart) and several decades of privileged back room corporate lawyering don't make a statesperson capable (or truly interested) in solving the issues of the chasm that now exists between the haves and have-nots in this country. Clinton can *talk* all she wants about health care and the working class ... but she remains, in fact, the single largest recipient of insurance and pharmacutical company graft, and one of the biggest NAFTA supporters in the Senate. All politicians lie, but she takes it to a new level and art.
I began the primary season "knowing" that I'd be working for and voting for *whoever* rose to the top of the field ... and, frankly, I expected it to be Clinton. But while I have been inspired and energized by Obama through the process, I have also become revolted by the desperation, dishonesty and selfishness demonstrated by Clinton ... so much so that I truly don't know how I could ever consider voting for her.