Letters to the Editor
-
Wow!
It's a miracle! Obama's pictured to Clinton's left in this!!
-
With supporters like svenson, Hillary folks sure must be proud!
A Hillary supporter -- or lurking troll -- writes an offensive posting and not ONE Hillary supporter disavows the lies and bigotry against Obama.
This is the kind of thing that disturbs me most.
If I were a Hillary supporter -- I would place ads in the New York Times and USA Today -- distancing myself and the campaign from all the scurrilous lies and distortions going around about Obama -- in "mysterious" viral emails.
I would begin every rally with a disavowal and make sure these rumors ended. Then I would run on the merits of my candidate.
But, none of you do it and your candidate does not do it.
Inaction is the same as support. You are as guilty as the people doing the lying and who have the bigotry.
Shame, shame.
-
Still looking for a little indignation folks...
Jabari -- You're not seriously coming after me with crap about Hillary not doing her job, are you?? Get real. Hillary completely has the edge on that issue, given Obama's total failure to carry out his duties as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs. The guy is an empty shirt and an opportunist who accepted an important Senate chairmanship purely as a resume building exercise knowing he was running for president. If you can't walk and chew gum at the same time, then stop walking.
And oh, yeah, I'm moved to tears with your story about the 2 Obama daughters living in the condo. FYI, a lot of people in this country live in condos, and a lot of them, when they move out of their condos, move into houses they can actually afford themselves, without the financial assistance of a sleazebag influence peddler. Rezkogate ain't going away so fast, dude, so you better come up with a better justification than those 2 poor little girls in the condo! 'Cause I ain't buying it.
-
@manyctnj
1. Subcommittees are not a big deal. Obama became Chairman only a little more than a year ago when the Dems took charge. Your outrage is manufactured.
2. I guess you don't remember the "sweetheart mortgage" the Clintons got for their house after they left office. We Dems didn't really begrudge it to them; we loved our popular President who had $5 million in legal fees, thanks to the GOP witch hunt -- but it was pretty "iffy." Remember, Hillary bought a house in NY before Bill had enough income so she could "qualify" to run for the Senate? Some details:
Washington Post, Sept 4, 1999:
"...Later in the week, McAuliffe returned the favor � and then some. When former White House chief of staff Erskine B. Bowles at the last minute balked at guaranteeing a $1.35 million mortgage for the Clintons' new house in Chappaqua, N.Y., McAuliffe rode to the president's rescue.
In a move that enables the Clintons to buy the house � and Hillary Rodham Clinton to have a base for her New York Senate run � the 42-year-old real estate developer and dealmaker pledged to put up $1.35 million in cash to secure a mortgage for the Clintons. Otherwise, swamped by more than $5 million in legal debts, the Clintons might have had difficulty obtaining the loan for the five-bedroom, century-old house..."
-
Say it ain't so, Joe!
Joe, how could someone as astute as you write these weak "the dog ate my homework" lines?
"Like most wealthy senators (and alas, most senators are wealthy), she doesn't spend much time poring over her own finances. Other people are hired to do that, and besides, she's been fairly busy for the past year or so."
She wasn't too busy to loan herself five million dollars, but even if she were busy, since other people handle her finances (we call them accountants and financial advisers), are you saying she was too busy to call or email somebody and say, "Release the info"?
That's beyond risible. Did one of your kids turn in your column by mistake? An intern? Was your computer hacked?
-
Obama's free pass with the press
Thank you very much for this article.
I am so sick of the free pass the media has given Obama.
If they spent half as much time investigating him instead of slandering Hillary the Democrats would have a much easier time defeating McCain.
-
Questions I'd like Clinton Supporters to Answer
Clinton endorsed McCain over Obama citing her view that this election is about national security and McCain, unlike Obama, has the requisite experience.
Question 1: Is it okay that a candidate running for the Democratic nomination has placed George Bush's view -- that fighting "terror" militarily is our raison d'etre -- over choice, civil liberties, public services and government regulation (issues on which Obama is VASTLY superior to McCain)?
Question 2: If it is okay to make the most important issue our military "war on terror" -- as McCain understands it (remember, he's more qualified to "cross that threshold" according to Clinton) -- then how does Clinton match up to McCain without nuancing it in ways that would support Obama's opposition to the war?
I would posit that a Democratic candidate should be trying to blow a hole through the GOP's big diversion of the "war on terror." It is this diversion that has allowed the dismantling of our Constitution, the loss of over $1 trillion dollars (that a lot of health care and education), and the ability of industry to get favorable legislation without a lot of press ink (thanks to all the stories about the "war").
-
And on the "favorable" Obama coverage...
As for favorable coverage for Obama, I'll admit that the media was harder on Clinton for a short time between when they were already calling her the winner (before the first primary) and last Tuesday (where she picked up something like 4 delegates -- at least until Texas finally releases its caucus results, which may make Obama the winner from last Tuesday).
Obama has received withering press since Tuesday, and Clinton's endorsement of McCain has largely gone unexamined. What's more, the TX Democratic Party has not released caucus figures that will probably make Obama the winner from that day. This is appalling -- none of this Clinton bounce, and the resulting press, would have been possible had Obama won (which it looks like he did).
I'm not attacking Clinton here -- I'm just pointing out that Obama is not getting the kid gloves that Clinton supporters claim. From Fox and Limbaugh to the NYT and NPR, Clinton is now getting the kid gloves, and/or Obama is being treated like public enemy number one.
Why is Obama so dangerous? Do you really think it has to do with "experience" to best lead the poor out of the dark? Or do you think it has more to do with experience in working the status quo?
If I were a billionaire, or an arms contractor, or an oil company, or a neo-con, or a media magnate, I'd feel a lot more confident that the profitable status quo would continue under McCain or Clinton than I would with Obama (who, I admit, could play ball too -- we just don't already know he will, which is a scarier "investment" for those who currently fund our public discussions and public elections).