Letters to the Editor
-
Thank you, anonymous
But I am not a Hillary supporter. Nor am I an Obama supporter. There *is* a third credible candidate in this race.
-
To cythera45
I actually like Edwards. Besides Kucinich, he's the one I'd vote for if Obama wasn't in it. Most of the other Obama supporters I know here in Chicago count Edwards as the second choice.
Maybe we have more in common than you think?
-
Fair enough
You wrote what you wrote.
And if whiners venture into parsing any of that into
advocacy in any direction at all..
That's their own grief.
[Must say I never went all intuit as to whom you supported.
Just good commentary...but them I'm slow. So...]
-
Now That Kucinich Is Withdrawing From The Campaign
Any former Kucinich supporters will be welcome in the campaign of the only other candidate who speaks openly and consistently on the issues, avoiding personal attacks, and staying on message with the truth:
1) out of Iraq immediately
2) bring the American military home
3) adhere to the letter and intent of the Constitution
4) no more illegal wiretapping
5) no more torture
6) wrest control of the money supply from the bankers and return it to the people.
That candidate is Dr. Ron Paul.
If you're still trying to decide between Senators Clinton and Obama, you just don't understand that these candidates have made serious ethical compromises to get the blessings of the corporate oligarchy to be anointed as "front runners". They will continue American military involvement in Iraq and elsewhere. They are as tied to sustaining and expanding the corporate-fascist American empire as George W. Bush has been. You can expect no relief from the daily barrage of lies and crimes or any significant betterment of your own quality of life or liberty under the administration of either.
-
You spin me right 'round, Joe
Joe ...
You are a talented wordsmith. You make your living at it. You have mastered the nuance of words ... to translate your ideas with hard facts, with a poetry of intonation, with a skillful voice. I don't doubt that you feel you have covered the Democratic primary with neutrality.
Nonetheless, your words seem to be timed and focused in ways that suggest you are either 1) incompetent and lazy ... by passing along unresearched talking points from negative research campaign memos on Obama, or 2) you are implicitly deciding to put forth ... with your great skillfulness and poetry ... ideas that would likely invoke questions about your subtle agenda. in the blogs this kind of behavior is known as "concern trolling" ... which is essentially planting a subtle fear in the mind of the reader by suggesting something about a candidate. Extreme examples of this against Obama were the Washington Post's piece on Obama being "a Muslim" ... which gave validity to the underground e-mail smear calling him a secret Islamic plant. This is your crime.
You claim that you pose legitimate inquires ... legitimate questions. You explain further by writing about Obama supporters: "A surprising number seem unable to tolerate so much as a skeptical word about Barack Obama." While this is possibly true for some ... it's deflecting and completely misleading. A legitimate question is something like: Is Obama's healthcare policy positive or negative. Here are reasons why, and reasons why don't. Someone says x, the other y. I've checked this, and x is correct. This is what reporters are supposed to do. Perhaps you do not wish to report or comment on facts, though. Perhaps you wish to mislead.
As an example, Conason writes in this New York Observer article, the one where he criticizes Mark Penn for being "dumb" to publish intel on Obama's kindergarden essays:
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.
It's that word ... "endorsements" ... most people take that word to mean "official endorsement." Like what we read in the news now, "X Paper endorses McCain." So, your choiceful words seem to indicate a desire to sway favor, or elict fear or doubt that is unfounded ... a deception. This is not the same as applying journalistic scrutiny. For Obama, his appeal to those moderate Republicans and Independents is because of his message to increase government scrutiny and accountability. To increase it's transparency and openness. It is not because he has policies that are Republican. He is a very progressive Democrat, by his policies. So, unless you are incompetent or dense, to suggest that he is gaining support from the "enemies" ... to elicit a concern that he isn't who he says he is ... like being a Muslim ... is concern trolling, a smear, and most likely points to your agenda. And speaks volumes about the problem in American politics and reporting: it's all spin. You are part of the problem and should acknowledge this. Own up, just like Chris Matthews.
You seem to understand the common use of the word, "endorsement." You wrote, in defending yourself as unbiased, "If I ever made an endorsement (of Hilary Clinton), it wouldn't sound like that." So, it seems you know an endorsement is a thing, a kind of official certificate. Why the sneaky use of the word in your other article? You further dig your hole with:
I don't feel obliged to make any endorsements, and readers shouldn't bother to look for hidden meanings because there aren't any. Everyone is free to disagree and blast away in the letters, but please don't accuse me of giving anybody an easy ride, because I haven't.
Which one is it Joe, incompetence or agenda?
-
Is -- cythera45 actually a Clinton supporter or staffer
Because every posting this person makes hurts Hillary ... I mean, I am beginning to wonder are we looking at an undercover Obama staffer, here to make Clinton's backers sound like mean spirited, paranoid, dishonest, hyper-partisan loons.
Seriously -- or maybe -- cythera45 is a Republican -- that actually is even more believable. -- cythera45 sounds like a Republican fantasy of what a Democrat is like.