Letters to the Editor
-
Not bad advice — for a concern troll
Not ad nauseam enough and not since he left office. Nice try, though. Much be weird to have to defend your team against those of us on the left who've had enough of the Clintons rather than the wingnuts on the right.
But make no mistake—millions of libs and Dems can hardly stomach the thought of another four to eight years of this bizarre couple. I don't care that she's an enabler. I don't care that he's a moral reprobate. I just don't want to have to deal with them in my face for the next several years. Beyond that, there's work to be done for real progressive change. And I've seen what they do when they get anywhere near progressive issues. No thanks.
-
manos99
"Why don't you go buy some real estate in the land of the lame? Because it surely is where you shine as its smarmy sovereign."
Now you are insulting lame people. They long ago did away with monarchy and the birthright to rule the lumpen masses.
-
It's not about the 2007 tax returns
While it is true that this year's tax returns might not be ready, that does not explain the unreleased tax returns from previous years.
I agree with the spirit of the article - the Clintons are the masters of refusing to answer questions, and when they do answer, there is generally nothing to hide. It's a tactic which exhausts the questioner, and ultimately treats the manufactured scandals with the appropriate amount of respect.
As Conason said, Obama would do well to focus on his campaign. There is a well-funded army going after the Clintons, and they are much more effective, well-funded, and thorough than he could ever hope to be. And nasty, nasty, nasty.
-
"I don't think Obama is asking them for anything not required by law"
By my understanding he is. I don't believe the law requires the release of tax returns until after the nomination.
As much as I currently adore Obama, this tax release thing is, at this point, nothing but a quibble. For the most part these two people have run out of anything substantive to argue about and so have their supporters.
Seventy percent of eveything posted at Salon at this point is contentless commentary. Ninety percent of the letters in this thread are absurd, including mine.
Those people taking Conason to task about this article's so-called lack of facts are missing the point that he is actually expressing his opinion. Facts and opinions are two different things. Most of what people are posting in this thread are their opinions, god help them for the fools that they are, and I see very few facts presented. Moreover, someone asked me to say why I considered Clinton more qualified than Obama. I have said why numerous times and so have others. Go search my archives if my opinion is so important to you.
Glenn Greenwald writes good articles and I am sure he would like most people to believe on his say so that Clinton has been well-vetted and that there is no there there in those old Clinton scandals, yet people citing Greenwald in this article only seem to remember that he said he looked at the Rezko case and saw nothing. It is hillarious that those same people seem to only want to see one-half of the point of the article.
Now Greenwald is entitled to his opinion. Sometimes he's facts and sometimes he's opinion, but if people reading this thread are fool enough to think that, no matter how much he looked at Rezko, he was not offering his opinion then for god's sake quit reading Greenwald because his rather sterling demonstrations of critical thinking are doing you no good. Moreover, Conason has written important work explaining how the Bush Administration has undermined our human and individual rights in this country and our civil rights as defined by the constitution.
If he is expressing opinion here -- and that is mostly what he is doing -- he has earned the right to express his opinion and have it considered far more than most of the people mouthing off in this letters thread.
Do you idiots not know that you are eating your own? Do you not understand that the most likely compromise to come from the current mess is these two candidates on the same ticket. Are you then going to pick up your marbles (what is left of them) and go home? Are Obama supporters going to say that they won't vote for Obama if Hillary is on the ticket? Are Hillary supporters going to say that they won't vote for Hillary if Obama is on the ticket.
I am on the verge of not coming here any more because of some of these hysterical, childish displays. I am willing to bet that I am not the only one.
-
Thank You For Your Insightful Article
Mr. Conason: Thank you for your insightful article. I'm sure this will not come as any surprise to you, but be ready for all of the personal insults and vicious attacks which inevitably follow any criticism of Obama. I am one of the 25% of Hillary's supporters (according to Pew research) who could never vote for Obama. I have researched his background, and he definitely does not represent the "new" kind of politics which he implies is one of his strong points. Just a few examples: The way he obtained his first elective office by forcing his mentor and friend, Alice Palmer, off the ballot; his connections to Rezko and his unwillingness to provide full disclosure; and, his deception regarding the recent contacts between his chief economic advisor and the Canadian embassy. I also feel that he has been deceptive in the debates and in his characterization of himself and Hillary Clinton. He has also misled the country regarding his alleged "continual opposition" to the Iraq war as a method of countering Hillary's greater level of experience, and when Bill Clinton pointed this out, the Obama campaign played the race card and falsely accused him of calling Obama (or his candidacy) a "fairy tale." I am also concerned about his unbridled ambition which led to his failure to have even one hearing in 14 months regarding Afghanistan or Pakistan on the committee which he chairs, because he was too busy campaigning. At such a critical juncture, I believe we need someone with the experience to tackle the many problems which this country is now facing. To me, his lack of experience coupled with the vagueness with which he sets forth his positions, makes him an unknown quantity with respect to his suitability for the Presidency. In addition, until just recently, he has receive a free pass from the press, and has not had to field the kinds of attacks that the Democratic nominee will most certainly face in the general election. Regarding Hillary's ability to govern, as opposed to Obama, who has only held national elective office for approximately 3 years (much of which has been consumed by his quest for the presidency), Hillary has been in the Senate since 2001. Senators on both sides of the aisle have grown to respect her ability to reach across the aisle to get things done. In the debates, I believe she showed a much more mature and intelligent command of all of the issues presented to her. And, I do believe that it is counterintuitive to think that someone as intelligent as Hillary who was a witness to history every day for 8 years in the White House, would not have learned valuable lessons from both the successes and failures of the Clinton administration, which will help her integrate into the job of President much more quickly.