Letters to the Editor
-
The picture
I don't know why this photo makes him look like some sort of evil wizard who has just paralyzed and levitated his foe with some telekinetic spell. As an Obama supporter, I hope I'm the only one who sees that, because it would hardly be the silliest justification I've heard people come up with so far for not liking him.
-
Damn you, achilleselbow!
I didn't see it until you pointed it out! It's freaking me out.
-
Haha achilles
Don't put any ideas into our resident trolls' heads!
-
villemar
there is no room for ideas in our trollop trolls' narrow minds. the tiny space therein is taken up by neocon talking points and the remnants of #2 pencils chewed during multiple attempts at passing GED exams on break from Toxic Bell.
-
Pictures are the least of worries
I was talking to a Kansas friend online the other day who commented that she wasn't sure about Obama because of what she's heard about him. "What have you heard," I wondered. "I hear he's Muslim," she responded.
This meme has got to be addressed and clarified, early and often. It *should* be irrelevant in this day and age, but it's not. And it's clear that the dishonest hucksters and shrieking harpies on the right will continue to cynically play on people's fears whenever and wherever they think they can get away with it.
-
playing fast and loose with vote totals
Madden says Clinton's dubious math to claim she's leading in the popular vote doesn't count the "millions who voted for uncommitted" in Michigan, where Obama wasn't on the ballot. Uh... my check of the npr.org election page shows just under 280 thousand votes for "uncommitted". That's not even one million, let alone millions.
And while we're talking numbers of votes, Iowa's a fricking caucus and only a few thousand voters even took part in the Democratic caucus there. So I don't think Iowa is some thundering voice of the people.
I'm an Obama supporter in Oregon, where he just won, but with the Kentucky and Indiana losses, and PA, etc. I realize he has a prob with the Nascar set that needs to be dealt with. But making up numbers doesn't make that problem go away.
-
I was there.
The speech looked pretty good on TV when I got home, but in person it was electric. This was the eighth time I've seen Obama in person, and he has grown so much over the last year, it's amazing. When he appeared at Hilton Coliseum about a year ago, 7000 people showed up, and he looked as awed by that experience as the crowd was to hear him. Tonight, he was in command of the crowd from the very first words.
The article recaps the highlights of the speech, but what was truly impressive about it was the change in focus, and the change in tone. The focus was on working people and their problems and aspirations. The tone was far more aggressive than his typical primary speeches. He turns out to be a full-throated advocate, not just for his message of change, but also for his criticisms, in fact the country's criticisms, of the performance of government for the last 7 years.
If your concern about Obama has been that he's too nuanced, or that he fails to engage the specifics, tonight's speech should go a long way toward answering these criticisms. Like Reagan, he speaks in broad strokes, but it is very clear that he expects to achieve numerous large-scale objectives in foriegn policy, education, economic recovery and health coverage. He has made plain what his governing style will be. It will be inclusive. But, there is no doubt that his will to achieve what he promises, and his confidence in Americans' ability to come together to engage these difficult issues is not in doubt at all.
John McCain is in trouble.
-
Arthur, here's some math for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7arCYI0a-lU
Oregon is 90% white, same as Kentucky. Income is lower than in Ohio, and it has a larger manufacturing base than Ohio or West Virginia. And tonight he won it in a landslide.
Obama doesn't have a problem with "working class white voters". Appalachia has a problem with Obama.
-
Remarkable?
A state that means nothing when it comes to deciding elections?
A BBC commentator put it right tonight...a sad night for Obama, because he just CAN'T put Hillary away...having a majority of delegates means absolutely diddley squat...Hillary won more votes, more delegates tonight, trouncing him again in a border state that DOES matter...
Again, BBC reporter noted: it was a "nothing" night for Obama...
Obama and his minions trot out the argument that the SDs shouldn't be deciding the election...well, guess who is? The party establishment coming out for him...
KY and WV have resoundingly said no to Obama, and no, not because they are all a bunch of racist crackers, as Obama supporters would have you believe...funny how they hate stereotypes yet engage in the most assinine ones to justify their own bigotry. David Gergen owes every voter in both KY and WV for saying on CNN that Hillary should renounce votes from people who said they wouldn't vote for him because of race...well, are votes by Obama going to be renounced because people said they wouldn't vote for her because she is a woman?
Reducing people to caricatures...ABSURD!!!
-
Oregon and working class
Oregon is 90% white, same as Kentucky. Income is lower than in Ohio, and it has a larger manufacturing base than Ohio or West Virginia. And tonight he won it in a landslide.
Obama doesn't have a problem with "working class white voters". Appalachia has a problem with Obama.
-- Uberbah
Nice try...Oregon is one of the most liberal states in the US...a west coast Massachusetts...to say that they would be voting not for Obama would be a shocker...the same was true in Wisconsin...fact is, Obama won't be winning in any of these states where a few thousand crazed supporters came out to intimidate and hoist their candidate on neighbors in ballots that were not secret...democracy NOT in action...
-
When a race is close...
This race is a dead heat. And in the situation we find ourselves, the idea that B. Obama can just "declare" himself victor is arrogant. Not surprising, just overbearing. Even if we discount the issue of electability, no one deny the obvious 50-50 split in the choice of Democrats throughout this contest.
The method for choosing a candidate is already designed. Neither candidate has yet reached the number needed to be the nominee. Saying something else won't make it so. I'm just glad that Clinton is strong enough and determined enough to stay in the race until the race is complete.
Too bad Obama and his supporters want to subvert the process. But we have been party to that kind of politics for almost a decade so it isn't surprising. It is however an odd choice for someone whose entire candidacy is based on "change."