Letters to the Editor
-
Thanks Salon.Com!
Wow, another winner of an article producing another winner of a debate.
Boy, I sure don't know how Progressives would have managed if your e-zine hadn't been chartered to encourage strength and unity in the party.
Keep it up!
-
Reality-based Liberal
They will never answer that question. KateTex did. Bless her. But the rest will throw shit back to see how much of their racist rants will stick. Don't you know by now, that for some Clinton fans, it is not about experience, it is about race. Obama wins, they vote McCain. Hell, Hillary Clinton has already set them up for that. All those who afraid of immigrants, minorities, gays and lesbians, poor, workers, move to the right. All others move to the left. That's why we are losing winning games. Racism is alive and well in America. God Bless America.
-
God, such difficult questions but I'll take a try...
Is it acceptable that a candidate running for the Democratic nomination has placed George Bush's priority -- "national security" in the form of his "war on terror" -- over reproductive choice, civil liberties, public services and government regulation (issues on which Obama is VASTLY superior to McCain)?
Answer: It is the Obamateur who insisted all those sixties matters were tiresome and done with. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to assume the obamateur WANTED to make foreign policy the center of his campaign and to call into question his LACK OF experience therein (excluding of course living abroad when he was 10).
By saying McCain is "ready to cross the [White House] threshold and Obama is not, because McCain is ready to take up Bush's "war on terror," she is concluding that this is more important than the progressive issues I cite above.
Answer: While Obama postured against the war to raise funding before he had to worry about the fallback of it, it is he who has made it the centerpiece of his campaign. For the matter the Obamateur has based his ENTIRE CAMPAIGN on a silly Iraq speech he made when he had no skin in the matter which was probably more to rally up dollars from Syrian and Iranian donors in Illinois than any "judgement" call.
Question 2: If it is okay for the Democratic nominee to make Bush's "war on terror" the number one issue, then how can Clinton match up to McCain in the general when she has much less "national security" credentials?
Answer: Eight years of peace and prosperity in their administration. Successfully thwarting year 2000 terrorists on the Canadian/Washington border. Successfully prventing another 9/11 sort of attack on the USA. Negotiating successfully with North Korea. Containment policy in the mideast and in China.
Succesful peace brokering in the middle east and in Ireland.. we could go on and on but why. It's obvious.
Now - what has the Obamateur ever done in foreign policy short of visting Somalia and dressng up in Muslim garb for pictures?
And why did he enlist millions of dollars of taxpayer money to an indicted fraudelent like Resko?
-
@ madamfauntleroy
While I don't want to call anyone here racist, given the liberty with which they're throwing around words late at night, I will agree with you that racism in the US taints much of what is killing the left (particularly with the "war on terror," which casts whole populations with legitimate grievances as one monolithic enemy of civilization).
I do have to disagree with you about KateTex answering me. She said that Clinton didn't endorse McCain over Obama and stopped there. If this is a difference on choice of word, fine (although I think I use the word appropriately).
Clinton said that this election is about "national security" and that McCain was ready to cross the threshold and Obama was not. That suggests to me that Clinton therefore believes that 100 years in Iraq as opposed to Obama's wanting to leave provides better national security. It also suggests to me that she believes that "national security" -- as McCain sees it -- is more important than all progressive issues on which McCain sucks. This is surprising given that if she is the candidate in the general, doesn't she has some control over what this election will be about? I would conclude that she believes managing Bush's war is more important that progressive issues.
So I'd say my questions still stand unanswered by KateTex.
-
@MadameRabidfly
All those who afraid of immigrants, minorities, gays and lesbians, poor, workers, move to the right.
Actually all immigrants, including immigrants who arrived much later than blacks have managed to become successful well-assimilated members of society and very influential in the Democratic party. Similarly hispanics are very active and savvy politically and are destined to become the future political deciders of the country: already are.
Nobody seems to have any issue in fact with "minorities"
Meanwhile in every single one of your hate-filled rants you've gone on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on calling people "racists", "Nazis", "blackshirts"(whatever that is.
that's where people get sick of you and you become a cartoon that everybody tunes out. It's one thing to call someone a racist when there is significant evidence to support it. But that usually encompasses a little bit more than their not supporting a half-black candidate that's entirely unqualified.
Not that any of this will dissuade you from your insistance upon crying wolf in every hate-filled message you write I'm sure.
-
@ ShawnWM
You have answered me by talking about Obama. I was asking a question about Clinton and asking if it makes sense for the Democratic nominee to embrace GOP frames.
-
ShawnWM
Just learn from the master, you who are so free with your racist crap. Not all Clinton supporters are racist, but you are. You are the master. I bow to you.
-
@RBL
Sorry you don't get to write the rules and then play referee too.
YOu asked why Clinton was talking about national security. Well if you haven't noticed a unified Republican party is attacking on national security. I don't think they're very interested in talking about civil rights.
But since the Obama campaign has told us the sixties civil liberties movements were tired and over,what in the F. is your point? They don't matter, remember.
Just more silliness to hit HRC with? You betcha.
Truthfully I think you better take Conasson's advice and start worrying about your own preferred nominee who seems to be standing up as well to the Republican assaults on him as the Bush twins at a keg party.