Letters to the Editor
-
@doc
It sure seemed like you were throwing me in with the trolls like like "Tom Payne", MadameF and Manos whatever his sig was, among others who may well, for all I know, be the same person posting under multiple aliases and whose "content" if you want to call it that consists of personal attacks, slurs, race-baiting, offensive accusations and toilet humor. Just reading through the past few pages, or if as you say, you have been all night, I just can't see how any reasoned person could conclude anything like that.
I've regularly provided citations, engaged in political strategical discussions and history, and even with the cretins posting their moronic personal attacks and slurs the sort I've never seen anywhere else, as in EVER, the worst you can say I did was call someone rabid and vulgar, and quite fittingly so at that. I don't apologize for it either.
Now, I really am out.
'Nite.
-
Substandard White Male
As if I'd give hint to a stalker like you to where I might be. Nice job denigrating Howard Dean, that poor dupe who thinks all fifty states count. The last campaign, Einstein, was decided by Diebolded Ohio. If you're thick enough to think that was a '64 or '72 style defeat, you're getting dumber by the drink. Another ten minutes, you're a paramecium. Come to think of it, you've been there all day. If McLame wins, which becomes more likely every week the Hillbots press on like lemmings toward the cliff, then pat yourself on the ass. That's an easy target: any part of you will do. The sad thing is that drooling quadrapeds such as yourself are delusional enough to think you're right. Just look at the numbers, the poll trends- you know, something besides the comic section of the newspaper, assuming you read one. The audiences of Limbaugh, Savage, Scarbrough, Hannity, and O'Reilly are made up of clench jawed thimblewitted white males, their tepid lives hanging behind them like flaccid rump cheeks, just like you. Make a fist. Down another shot. That's a good boy. How pitifully predictable; you don't even curse well. Brush up on it. Watch an Obama rally and radiate hatred toward that uppity half breed who's taken Hillary's crown right off her oversprayed head. In a way, I see your point: if you're not in first place in the horse race, all you see are assholes. Sweet dreams, peaches. A big wet kiss for the Hillster. love, tommy
-
Heaven's forbid doc
You are seriously not my type, in print I mean. Don't flatter yourself. You are to this forum what Charlton Heston is to films. He thought he was Moses all his life because he played a role. And your playing the role of the voice of reason is laughable. Hilarious in fact.
-
Nonsense.
Nice job denigrating Howard Dean, that poor dupe who thinks all fifty states count.
You don't know what you're talking about. AGain. It made nice talk for the lefties, but it's hard to have a 50 state strategy if your fawners are going to go nuts if you step inside of a church or a PTA meeting, the principle places.
No real new ground was made anywhere.
Rather, thanks to Rahm Emmanuel and Charlie Schumer who took over when it was obvious Dean had plenty of rhetoric but no real plan, went and picked some areas that had been historically Democratic and recently gone Republican, mainly in the Ohio Valley. These were cherry-picked these races such as the famous Baron Hill v. Mike Sodrell in Indiana where
Southern Indiana, Kentuckey and Ohio had ALWAYS been Democratic and Sodrell had beat Baron Hill by less than 200 votes in the earlier race against him.
Dean did nothing. The fact that he and his adulators then went and tried to take credit for Emmanuel and Schumers work was nauseating. In the same way that Howard Dean and his dolts were always riding Terry McAuliffe for fundraising from big donors as if that were a bad thing, Dean now has the DNC entirely broke.
You fawn over him if you want. I sure won't.
-
@RBL
Sorry but anyone who wants to claim that the candidate they don't support should be grandstanding on divisive social issues that their own candidate says are irrelevant and tired, is just not serious about intelligent exchanges in my book.
-
Shawn,
Surely you shine as an example of Queen Hillary's most "qualified" people! You shine forth with such clumsy grace, with such insectoid insights, and with such insipid inspirations, that I just gotta tell ya that it is just awesome to us all dude. May Slick Hilly slay the dragon and bring PEACE to the land!
-
Texas
Does anyone have the delegate results from Texas?
-
tom,
You'd better not divulge your address to that damn psycho. He'll try to show off his Hitler memorabilia collection. Beware.
-
Go over to Joan Walsh's spot
And read ljwalker's letter to Joan. It's highly ironic.
-
Notably Obama was not Rezko's only recipient
Joe your column seems to contain more innuendo than fact. With all due respect defending the Clintons while warning Obama to stay clear insinuates a double-standard. Obama has every right to ask Hillary Clinton to release her tax returns and records as the First Lady. Failure to to do so, regardless if mendacious or not, gives the appearance thereof. The public deserves to know if Hillary's mantra as being more experienced and ready day one can withstand scrutiny. And questions regarding Rezko are more a red herring than anything.
The Chicago Tribune scrutinized and investigated the Obama-Rezko relationship for years. Evidently nothing emerged that indicated Obama committed any wrong-doing. Considering the paper endorsed Obama for president seems unlikely to have done so in the event any doubts still lingered. Likewise after years-long Rezko investigations the FBI neither implicated nor named Obama as a target of interest.
Notably Obama was not Rezko's only recipient. His money flowed to Bush, other democratic lawmakers and even to the Clintons! Given that Obama donated Rezko's contributions to charity and the Clintons gave Hzu's $850,000 to charity means neither campaign can legitimately criticize the other in that respect nor should the press use double-standards.
Yes Bill Clinton ought to be commended for his generous efforts toward alleviating AIDS and other humanitarian projects, but that does not exempt him nor Hillary from being vetted and held to account. That includes ties to individuals with questionable agendas.
For example: Hillary's top campaign manager and adviser, Mark Penn, has a personal stake in both Hillary's campaign and John McCain's campaign. McCain's top adviser, Charlie Black, works for Mark Penn. Both, Penn & Black, have close ties to the WH including Karl Rove! Questions about donors to Bill's library may ultimately amount to nothing, but voters need to know one way or the other.
Clinton claims the mantle of experience, but what experience does she have? More importantly experience is a false narrative anyhow. Hindsight teaches us that unintended consequences are the direct result from making decisions based on errors in judgment. Continuing to make the same decisions expecting different results is ludicrous. Years of experience do not translate into wise decision-making unless one's judgment improves.
Furthermore every crisis is different, thus "experience" is of little consequence. In emergency situations quickly and correctly assessing the circumstances without reacting on impulse or e_motion is relevant to making sound decisions for determining the best course of action. The ability to use reasoned logic and rational thinking under pressure while responding to a crisis situation takes precedence over experience.
Obama has displayed nothing other than an consistently even temperament. Conversely Hillary has shown to be both reactive and e_motional when under stress. Tempting fear is Hillary's reactive impulse to Obama's message of hope.
Whatever lays beneath the covers voters deserve to know. But innuendoes and insinuations bearing little factual information are red herrings. Until proven otherwise Barack Obama is considered innocent.
Demanding answers from both camps is fair, however, defending double standards is indefensible.