Letters to the Editor
-
@Reality-based
You say: "I do have to disagree with you about KateTex answering me. She said that Clinton didn't endorse McCain over Obama and stopped there."
You are wrong - I didn't stop there. You may want to read my post again.
-
@ ShawnWM
Please don't be hostile. I haven't been.
My point is that the Democratic nominee does not have to accept the GOP frame you rightly state the Republicans are throwing out there. I would say that once you accept their rules, you have already conceded way too much.
-
Reality-based Liberal
I too did not think that KateTex' answer was sufficient, but she did try. She does not want her candidate to be seen in a bad light on it. So go after the candidate's opponent. But I give her marks for responding.
What strikes me is old 60s political activists on this thread who are so shying away from the seething masses, which is a code for being afraid of reinstating affirmative action. The angry white male syndrome among the aging white male who would rather vote for McCain than Obama. That is the subtext. That is why it is not appropriate to answer your questions because then we will know the real reason.
-
@Rabidfly
Let me try to explain this one last time:
Regardez-vous un large-mouthed bass and I don't give a dime what you think.
-
@ KateTex
You did raise additional points about voters believing that Clinton represents the interests of the poor. I responded to that. But you didn't answer my questions about Clinton placing "national security" above progressive issues (and I put national security in quotes here because she used the phrase to refer to McCain's ability over Obama to deliver it, and I believe McCain's 100 years in Iraq and willingness to bomb Iran to be contrary to sound national security).
-
@RBL
not hostile 2 u.
Sorry but I live in the real world. Pulling civil liberties out of the sky as your latest noodle to wack Hillary with is preposterious when your own candidate said they didn't matter and were all dried up and done with.
Obviously people must agree with him. By all exit polls people were interested in 1) the economy 2) healthcare and 3) security.
Try focusing on those and you'll do better.
-
@ ShawnWM
Were you referring to me when you posted to "Rabidfly?"
-
Slider
A strike over the outside corner at the knees, sire. You make sense, a rarity here. Must, you must admit, Shawn is a master baiter. Sometimes I just can't resist. This is a First Amendment Zone, I think. I, for one, pledge that no matter how much snark and drivel gets posted on obscure internet sites, I will vote for a Democrat for President, and for every office down to dogcatcher. I will never vote for a republikan until Lincoln comes back. Is that unequivocal enough? And, Shawn the Pawn, I hope you get paid by the word. That must be plan A in your personal economic bunker. Place B is burgers, plan C is a coke. You want flies with that? You draw enough with the piles you leave here. Ease up on the fiber. I'm stayin' upwind. And drink plenty of water; it's gonna make it much easier to piss up a rope. love, tommy p.s. thanks, fauntleroy. My posts are flippant and juvenile, but at least I know how to use the language. Buy a thesaurus, Shawn. No, it's not a dinosaur. GFY, tom
-
OT--if that's possible..a big Dem win tonight!
Democrat Foster won Dennis Hastert's district, taking away a Rep "safe seat" after 30 years! Obama campaigned for him and McCain for the Republican. OUR team won.
-
@ ShawnWM
I did not just cite civil liberties, but also reproductive choice, government regulation, fair taxation and civil rights. If these are not core Democratic issues, then what do you see as the difference between the parties.
Also, please cite where Obama says all these things, including civil liberties, don't matter (I will need more than his saying we need to move beyond the 60s, which is terribly imprecise).
-
doc5467
Little Lord Baltimare, and many others blithely overlook your cowardly attacks on "Ko-Tex" and all your other epithets and they say nothing.
I've learned from experience not to get in the middle of insult fests. I believe that insults reflect poorly on the person making them and that most people come to appreciate that. Discussions about who is being more insulting, which side is more at fault, are especially meaningless, imo.
If people wouldn't respond to insults with their own insults, or complaining about the insults, or scolding others for their insults, those threads die off. When I was a board moderator I used to get so frustrated! When I would see a discussion degenerate into flaming, and then into who was more insulting than the other, and then how the whole board was just a big insult-a-palooza, I would think, "Just stop. Don't yell, 'You stop' to someone else. Just stop yourself." It would be so obvious.
Of course, some people think the insults are "the fun part" which addresses why we come here in the first place. To exchange barbs? To vent? To ridicule others out of our own anger or frustration? To convince those who disagree with us? To learn something new? To clarify one's own thinking? To share camaraderie with like minded fellow citizens? To see what "the other side" is up to? To compete and score points against the "opposition"?
I suspect we all have different motivations that may clash with each other, hence the continual discord.
But we're all here voluntarily, let's not forget!
"Step away from the computer..."
-
@RBL
traditionally civil rights issues have played bettre for Republicans than Democrats.
That's because populist voters are not social liberals. This is not only true of affirmative action but also of womens rights and homosexual rights. For that matter blacks are not tolerant of homosexuality. Blacks are not social liberals either, but rather tend to be more conservative in their social values and frequently evangelical Christians.
Only about 22% of the voting electorate considers itself "liberal" and most of them unsurprisingly are in famously leftie pockets , Vermont, Madison, Wisconsin, Berkely and San Francisco, etc.
For that reason when the conversation is about social issues Democrats lose. Lee Atwater , Reagan's strategic campaign hack recognized that when Reagan ran for his second term (after being a fiscal nightmare) and successfully changed the topic to one of family values, God, abortion and all that stuff.
Where Democrats DO do well is to focus on the economy. It's how the only twice elected Democrat since FDR got in. That should be the focus of the Democratic campaign, not Iraq, and I believe HRC is the only one who understood that.
Obama grandstanding on his Iraq judgement to appease to a small minority for which it was the only persons for whom it was a hot-button issue was not a good strategic move for him.
Now, the Republicans are going to slaughter him with it.