Letters to the Editor
-
Wow, new heights of credulity
Joe, sweetie, wake up. Conservatives don't hate Hillary - they love Hillary!
She is two apparently exclusive but nevertheless both devoutly-to-be-wished results for repugs:
1) the only potential Democratic nominee who could NOT beat the repug in 2008, and
2) the only potgential Democratic nominee who would, if elected, faithfully and fanatically follow the war-mongering, pro-torture, pro-corporation, anti-working-family, anti-environment policies of Smirky and Darth.
Hillary is win-win-win for repugs, which is why they are promoting Obama so frantically. They want their support of Obama to send Obama-leaning dems running to Hillary.
Liberals, progressives and real Democrats hate Hillary, for the exact same reason repugs love her. Repugs like Kristal know that, and it's another reason they are cynically promoting Obama.
-
Nice attempted hatchet-job on Obama there, Joe
Exactly how much does Hillary (or her campaign managers du jour) pay you, Debra "Obama's not really black" Dickerson and other Salon writers to smear Barack Obama?
This entire article reeks of the panicky fear old-guard centrist Dems such as yourself have that your supposedly automatic nominee Hilary is in trouble. She's looking very defeatable in all the upcoming primaries, and has to contend with not only Obama but Edwards' surging support as well.
{And yet NONE of you choose to attack Edwards. Is it because you don't believe he has Barack's charisma - and is as such not a true threat? Or are there darker racial undertones there...white liberal guilt notwithstanding?}
This fear is why the news tickers run these desperate lines from Hilary's people:
1.) Obama inhaled drugs....he's not fit to lead!
2.) Obama is truly/secretly Muslim...you don't want one of them running the show, do you?!?!
And now, from Joe here is 3.): Obama is supported by the right!So u better stick it to those conservatives by voting for Hillary!
````````
***sighhhh*** How refreshing it would be if the Clinton campaign actually found a solid, plausible reason to justify choosing her over Barack Obama.
But that apparently is just not going to happen - no matter how audaciously we progessives hope...
-
This Conservative Will Continue to Support Obama After the Lights Go Out
Regardless. I've made my committment and this is a ship I'd be happy to go down with. However, I don't think it's going down. And assuming it doesn't, many a neocon will be walking the plank come January. I can hardly wait to give an occasional shove.
As to why conservatives/Republicans/hoopies dislike Ms. Clinton so intently, it is an enduring mystery. I mean, she represents the best of the worst of the current administration, so you'd think they'd be groveling. However, she is, first of all, a woman (that just won't fly in neoconville) and she is also married to Slick Willie, who really bears the burden of the mysterious hatred of neocons. Bill Clinton was as Republican a President as we've had since -- well, I'd like to count the good ones, so I guess we have to go all the way back to Ike. But that didn't make the neoMcarthyites love him, and it sure isn't gonna get his Mrs. any love from the far right edge of this flat planet. And yet this perplexes me. But so does the existence of Rush Limbaugh.
All the above is hopefully moot, however, and there are more of us out there than one might think, even if one were Joe Conason.
Hide and watch, Joe. The wind is about to shift.
-
Nice Concern Trolling There, Joe.
Whether it comes from some commenter on a blog or a respected columnist, I just love the "the Republican elites are praising Obama because they think he will be easier to beat than Hillary." For that to be true, they have to be much better at keeping secrets than they were from 1998 - 2006. Throughout that time, the Republican machine leaked its plans like a sieve. Over and over again, Rove and all the little Rovelets would brazenly disclose their plans and their strategies for each election. Amazingly, and distressingly, the MSM and the Democrats alike ignored this treasure trove of information.
If the Republicans really did have a secret plan to sink Hillary because they thought Obama was easier to beat, they simply would not have been able to keep it secret. They could no more stop themselves from leaking it to a reporter, or even making a public speech or writing a column, about it than they could resist a tax cut. They just aren't very good at keeping secrets. And why should they be? It's not like they've ever suffered any adverse consequences, so why not.
So far, however, the only people I've heard whispering about this secret plan of theirs are Hillary's supporters. Their reasoning is that since they just "know" Hillary is tough and smart and savvy, and therefore unbeatable, the Republicans must be dreading running against her and therefore anything they say is part of some supersecret Machiavellian rightwing plot to destroy her.
Don't worry about Obama and his supposed lack of armor. If he bears up under Hillary's oppo machine, he is not going to have much trouble with the pale shadow of its former self that is the 2008 GOP.
-
Edwards/Richardson
Is the way to go.
-
Shameless Joe Conason
Here is what Joe Conason wrote in the most recent NY Observer article on this same subject. Seems Salon editors are wise to have him parse his words here, but the Salon readership should be aware. Conason writes:
For many months, both Senator Barack Obama and former Senator John Edwards have been tossing out attack lines that they hoped would bring down Mrs. Clinton’s formidable numbers. Mr. Obama has not hesitated to use harsh language to question her character, her sincerity, her fitness to serve and her capacity to govern if elected. He has reserved his toughest rhetoric for the Democratic front-runner while suggesting that he will find common ground with the Republicans.
That may explain why Mr. Obama has won endorsements from a panoply of Republican operatives and spokespersons, including former White House political boss Karl Rove and David Brooks, the neoconservative voice on the New York Times Op-Ed page.
Full text here: http://www.observer.com/2007/hillary-s-still-race
Yes, perhaps Conason has borrowed Bush's dictionary ... the one that allows the president to say "we don't torture" seems to also allow for a loose interpretation of what "endorsement" means. Conason still writes for Salon:
William Kristol endorsed Obama in an editorial titled "Time to Move On ... From Hillary," urging Democrats to prevent the return of the Clintons to the center stage of American politics.
The latter part of Conason's sentence is accurrate, the former is not. Here is what Kristol actually writes:
What we are not looking forward to is the prospect of Hillary Clinton in the spotlight, as the Democratic nominee. She might be easier to beat than Barack Obama or John Edwards. She might take positions that are a little less distant from this magazine's views than Obama or Edwards. But the last few weeks have reminded us--and, we suspect, many other Americans--how little we should want the Clintons back on the center stage of American politics.
To say that a Democratic candidate has been "endorsed" by neocons can serve no other purpose but to smear him. Isn't it clear that Americans are sick and tired of fear-mongering to install agenda, Joe? Didn't we get enough of this with Iraq? And now with Iran? Shouldn't one assume that this language must have originated from those who would benefit from a smear? Whom are you speaking for, Joe? Are we soon to have the pleasure of reading your "liberal" take on Obama's middle name? Or your concern that he might have sold drugs as a teen!
You ought to explain yourself, Joe.