Letters to the Editor
-
@ Hilary Supporters and Joe C.
So what are the questions you want answered.
I see so many people wanting "questions" answered, but no-one states what they are. So unless you guys are just parroting talking points, i'd like to see some of you guys give me the specific questions you want answered.
You too Joe C. You wrote a peice and never once mentioned exactly whats in question or what they are.
So unless i see these questions (and BTW, a google better not turn up they are already answered), i will have to assume your all just not really to be taken seriously.
Shouldn't take lonq to respond, right? I'm waiting........................
-
LJ - Accord
It appears we are united in our opinions of what Senator Obama should do next. Though we come from different places, perhaps, to get there, the goal is the same - transparency and fairness.
-
@ little lord baltimore & others: Regarding Your Posts
I've posted it numerous times and, strangely, all the Hillary supporters seem to ignore it. I agree with you that it is ironic that the Hillary is so enthusiastically trying to create a suspicion of wrong doing in connection with Obama and Rezko. The saddest and most surreal moment was when she accused Obama of being worse than Ken Starr.
I read the Sun Times</> article you posted, long before it was posted by you. Since then, Sweet has also raised additional questions, as has ABC News. The latest Sun Times post link is here:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_and_his_taking_que.html
Please don't lump "Hillary supporters" into a group. As I have pointed out numerous times, we do not think in one mind, just as Obama's followers don't think in one mind. To engage in generalizations has no benefit and simply reinforces "hard" lines and hard feelings.
-
6Stringer
Don't you know, for Jesus sake, that this is Smear Obama Week? Plaigerism, well Hillary Clinton plaigerized John Edwards in the same debate she waved her finger at Barack Obama. NAFTA Canada connection has roots, guess where? in the Hillary Clinton campaign. Can anyone, especially Move.On lady explain Hillary Clinton's love affair with John McCain? If national security is important to you, get out of the Middle East. Not start another war. Trust Hillary Clinton on anything? Let us put her on the defensive, why don't we? Answer all this and then let's debate before you create a storm in the teapot on Rezko.
-
@ David Blixt: Tough And Fair
David --
I think you can say that. I wrote to one of the news outlets this week and said, essentially, that I expect the media to ask tough questions of all candidates. However -- and really all I have ever asked -- is that the media be TOUGH AND FAIR. I don't think that is asking too much at all.
-
The oligarchy must be pleased
Clinton can ditch all of her "principles" regarding choice, civil liberties, the environment and government for regular people, by endorsing John McCain over Obama. Meanwhile Obama wonders what interests allowed the Clintons to lend the campaign $5 million and he's some kind of freak. Obama is under attack not just by Clinton, but everywhere.
Clinton has run a relentlessly negative and hypocritical campaign for months against Obama and he asks one question and the storyline is either "both sides slugging it out" or "Obama not all he seemed." No wonder people who don't like Clinton are getting so mad on this and other sites.
While I was never excited by Obama, I am surprised at how he has managed to run a relatively positive campaign -- by any standards in the modern era. And all it's seemed to have got him is the inability, according to the media, to ask any questions of Clinton, even warranted ones (there's no distinction between good questions and smears in the US media -- it's all "negative").
Field reporter: "Jews are complaining that Hitler is gassing them, but Hitler makes the case that he is being called a fascist. Back to you Bob."
Bob: "It's getting ugly on both sides, isn't it?"
It's clear, judging from elite media (not Fox, but NPR, the NYT, the WP), that big money has decided that a race between Clinton and McCain is one that poses little threat, however it turns out; the big danger is Obama, who isn't fully bought and sold.
I don't think Obama is any great promise, but at least I don't know he's a whore. And that alone seems to be too much of a risk for the powers that be.
I also don't think Joe Conason is part of a conspiracy, but he is swept up in the environment the media creates. The amazing story is what I open with here: Clinton endorsing McCain as a more prepared president. That's huge. All progressive issues, on which McCain TOTALLY SUCKS, take a back seat to Bush's priorities: fear of terror. And that's gotten, what, one post at Salon?
As if the average American has more to fear from terrorists than their own bank about to foreclose on their house -- or the employer about to lay them off. We're talking millions of victims compared to the less-than-3,000 from 9/11, which was a one-day anomaly for which no one has been proven ultimately responsible through impartial judicial processes.
Not only is our democracy corrupt to its core, but the American people are denied even a forum for fixing it. Obama tries to fight a high-minded campaign and is attacked relentlessly until he starts to fire back, on legitimate issues, and he is now a hypocrite because he didn't just take it like a punching bag.
Where was the liberal press when "uniter-not-divider" Bush tore the nation apart? I don't recall anybody calling him a hypocrite outside of fringe journalism, until it became ridiculously obvious and it was WAY too late.
Humbug.
-
ljwalker53
Be careful what you ask of the media - to be TOUGH AND FAIR. Be ready to be TOUGH AND FAIR yourself, to digest all TOUGH AND FAIR information, which you cannot elude if that TOUGH AND FAIR information is not in the best interests of Hillary Clinton.
TOUGH AND FAIR isn't it the slogan that Anderson Cooper uses on CNN? Go see how fair he was about Michael Moore's Sicko.