Letters to the Editor
-
is it just me...
...or is Hillary now getting the "silent majority" that Nixon, of all people, used to speak of?
-
It's worse than that, Curtis
It's not just a "majority" now - it's all "normal people" and "regular folks." Circularly defined as people who don't like Obama, because normal, regular folks just ... don't. How can they? He refused a cup of coffee at a diner once!
-
These articles are bones being thrown to the Obama crowd
Have you noticed? Joan too has changed her tone. I guess the letters are working and to get more people to sign on and post letters they write non-informative, fluff pieces just to a throw you a bone.
Clinton is wasting her time and trying to assisinate Obama's character. First it was the plagiarism, then it was the secret meeting with Canada, then bitter-gate, now Wright (I'm sure I missed a few)...All bullshit issues meant to distract you and make her opponent look untrustworthy.
I know you have a vagina in common with her but do you really want someone like this as your president?
Try this on for a real issue: McCain and Clinton (the new Liebermann) are proposing a holiday from the gas tax. I'm sure you've all heard what a boneheaded idea this is. As a result, you'll save a whopping $80 in gas this entire summer at a cost of 10 billion to the US government. Hmmm, what is the cost-benefit analysis say on this one....Let me think--how about it's a fucking stupid idea. Clinton and McCain are trying to buy your vote. Plain and simple!
-
squalorholla
Thank you for being our thought police. The revenant of the Staasi appreciates your efforts.
-
Barack Hussein Obama
What is that accomplish for you when you use his middle name as an epithet!
You're a fucking Republican tool, like that whino coward that McCain threw under the bus. Someone ought to throw you under a bus, literally!
You are racist, ugly, and probably very fat. Go read a fucking Anne Rice novel or some shit like that, you fatass pig!
-
They can't win
Neither one of them. The sad truth is that Obama's leftist appeal doesn't translate to the kind of strategy that wins for us in the Electoral College, and the Illinois Senator's well-executed plan to paint the Clintons as rascists and worse has weakened Hillary to the point that she cannot now hope to beat McCain. There is only one solution, and it's been mentioned here before; but for the sake of my sanity, let me dream here:
Neither has the delegates to win, and, at the convention, the first ballot gives us a tie. Second ballot, and maybe the third and fourth, show no movement. Somehow a rumor starts in the hall that all of the rancor can be avoided if the nomination goes to Gore with Obama as his VP. Deadlock over, and a reluctant Al Gore accepts his party's nomination for the second time - with Obama at his side.
It is the only way I can see a Democratic victory in November. I'm ashamed of what happened to Hillary, and I wish it weren't so, but I can't see any other way to beat McCain...
-
Racism
Here we have a mixed race candidate, the first in history to ever come this close to securing the nomination of a supposedly inclusive, big-tent party. He leads in states, raw votes, and pledged delegates in a campaign run against an opponent who started the race leading by as much as 25% in national polls with the support of a 20-year party machine and the highly reverred and recent ex-President in her corner. Still, we're sitting around here asking whether Obama can connect with working class white voters. WTF?
Had situations been reversed and Hillary won 11 straight landslide wins after Super Tuesday, the Democratic party would've stepped in to end this race in early February. Instead, there's the serious possibility that a group of party insiders are going to take the nomination away from the candidate who leads in every objective criteria and hand it to his opponent. All because (let's face it) they're worried that working class white voters in their own ranks won't support a non-white candidate.
If that's not racism, I don't know what is ...
-
Why must we be so demographically simple-minded?
Is "white working class" really the only intelligent label we can slap on the citizens of Wisconsin and Indiana? Why does everyone think that Obama's big victory in Wisconsin means that he made, amazingly fleetingly, significant in-roads into Clinton's demographic base that amazingly retreated again when we moved on to Ohio and Pennsylvania? What if those states are just different? Imagine that a white "working class" (what is that? do we not all work?) person in Wisconsin might not be the same as one in Ohio and Indiana. Let's dig a little deeper here and stop relying on gut feelings. There are plenty of incredibly smart people all over the web digging into the more subtle demographics of these states (what with a glut of primary voting data to sift through). But columnists everywhere continue to spout off simple-minded conventional "wisdom" based on their World Book Encyclopedia knowledge of each state's demographics. We can do better, and we'll elect a better president when we realize that.
-
I'm a bit confused
by some of the statements here about HRC's "experience"--35 years, some posters point to--35 years of what exactly? First of all, she is about 15 years older than BO. What elective experience did she have before running for the Senate? What was her reason for being elected then if she had no legislative experience? Why is it a different standard for BO? She was a lawyer, sat on Walmart's board; ok, she was married to Clinton--how is that relevant experience?
And if people are going to attack BO re Wright, it seems just as fair to go after someone who projects herself as a strong woman but was publicly humiliated by her philandering husband. Can't we ask how could she stay with him? Does that mean she supports men who stick cigars in women? It's as relevant as attacking someone for their religious practices--I liked elections before the right wing made religion fair game for smears.
I was fairly neutral until Super Tuesday and felt I could support either candidate, although I was put off by Clinton's sense of being entitled to the nomination. Since that time, I watched how her campaign fell apart and went broke--how is her lack of foresight supposed to reassure me about how she would run the country? Then I watched her shamelessly lie about her previous commitment to not counting FLA or MI-had BO done the same, I would have written HIM off. Does she think no one is paying attention to what she said before? That people would think it is fair to count votes in primaries where other candidates weren't even on the ballot? A real indication of elitism, if you ask me--she thinks voters are too stupid to pay attention.
Finally, to see her get down in the gutter with Republican tactics ("As far as I know, he's not a Muslim"--I mean, come on), even COURTING scum like Scaife, praising McCain, and now we see her supporters are spreading lies to voters in NC--we just spent 7+ years with corrupt sleazy Rethugs running the country--I don't want to vote for someone who is so at home with Rovian tactics, who presents herself in such a phony fashion (just a working class girl!)-- this is what "regular guy" Bush did to get (s)elected,--this country needs something different, that;s for sure and we won't get it with Clinton.