Letters to the Editor
-
@ KateTex
... if the editors of the Chicago Tribune believe that there is reporting yet to be done on Senator's Obama's and Mr. Rezko, then the editors should assign a reporter or two to go out there and, you know, report.
I mean, nevermind that the Trib seems to be here pretending that it's editorial content and news content are one and the same (and nevermind that you can't seem to tell the difference between and opinion and fact-based objective reporting)... isn't assigning reporters to report their friggin' job??
The idea, though, that these editors can claim, against all evidence, including evidence reported in their own paper, that there has to be a "There" there, simply because Senator Obama will no longer say on a daily basis that there is no there, there, would be laughable were it not for this: it was precisely this type of ass-backwards thinking and lazy journalism that got us into war in Iraq (together with the willful inability of US "news" consumers to get a clue).
-
@jebldmm
Cool. I'll take your word on this. Thanks.
-
David Blixt and Jabari
David, I do agree with you that Obama needs to counter these baseless attacks by hillary and her enablers swiftly and strongly. Conason has a long history with the Clintons so I am not at all surprised that he is offering up his patronizing advice with a wink, wink, nod, nod at the Clintons.
I realize that Obama wants to stay on the high grounds and does sincerely want to change the tone of national and local politics. But when the opposition chooses to take the low road and call their assassins to parcel out hit jobs, Obama really needs to stand up and blast their destructive tactics.
-
FINALLY!!!
I am quite sure I have not read a single article in this entire campaign in Salon or elsewhere with this tone of taking Obama to task on his statements and behavior. What a breath of fresh air!!
One point of order, I'm not sure it's fair to regard Obama any longer as the "favorite" to win the nomination.
-
Suspicion, suspicion
Isn't it fascinating that Hillary violently refuses to release her tax returns. A presidential candidate will refuse to do such a thing only if he/she know that such a move would create a scandal that would decimate their campaign. I would bet that had the details of her tax returns been public, they would reveal milliions of dollars obtained from shadowy sources. This woman is corrupt to the core, obsessively driven to power to the point she's willing to destroy Obama's chances if he becomes the nominee by saying that only she and McCain, but not Obama, are fit to serve as president. Her only conviction is:'It's me or no one". Ms. Powers was absolutely correct in calling her a monster, and it's a shame that Obama has accepted her resignation. Financial disclosure of Clinton's affairs would probably end her political career, so the odds of this profoundly corrupt and self absorbed woman revealing her tax returns are nill.
-
@ David Blixt...
Point taken, and I'll endeavor to click that "Read X's other letters" more often.
Apologies.
-
@Jabari
Likewise, I'll attempt to be clearer, and more concise.
No worries.
-
@jabari
What I gather from the Trib editorial is that the paper has made more than one good faith attempt to question Obama on the subject of Rezko. Since Obama has apparently refused all cooperation, the newspaper has rightfully expressed their frustration in this editorial. BTW, I'm a journalism grad and fully understand the news/editorial split - something which is increasingly going by the boards these days.
-
2006 would be fine
No one has yet asked Senator Clinton to release her 2007 taxes. Her 2006 taxes would be fine.
If there's nothing to uncover, why delay putting them out? It smacks of cover up.
-
@ chhabili
Actually, while there is a part of me that wants Senator Obama to go for Senator Clinton's jugular, that's not really my point.
My point is that Mr. conason has a professional obligation to report the facts. If Greenwald can do it, and do it consistently and well, why can't he?
And, if Mr. Conason lacks the competence to properly do his job, then he should be let go. I'm betting that the Clinton campaign will give him a job.
-
Breaking all rules
Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.
-
@ chhabili
Both Clinton and Obama made mistakes this week regarding statements about who is most qualified. I think Clinton over praised McCain, and Obama's advisor said neither Clinton or Obama are ready to answer the 3:00 am call. Oops. As for bombing Iran, I have never heard Clinton say this was a good idea. You can view Iran as a threat to our national security (which it is) and still reject bombing the country. I have seen quotes from former and present military officers who think McCain could be a little too eager to bomb Iran, but I have not seen them express similar concerns about Clinton. I wouldn't support her if I thought she would reject military advice regarding Iran, and the Pentagon does not want to go to war with Iran.
-
AKA...
I'm still not sure whether to take you seriously, but I adore you, as ever. You are one of the sharpest tacks here.
I voted for Obama and have given a little to his campaign, but I don't call myself an Obama Supporter because the term has come to have herd-mentality implications - thanks, in part, to Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, I have never experienced "the Big O," as you so hilariously call it. For me, Clinton represents the worst of the Democratic party. For a while I thought I could happily vote for either, but after he failed to do in her campaign on Tuesday, I remembered the dread I used to feel, long before she officially announced. I am tired, tired, tired of the Democratic party's centrist, loser candidates. I do admire her, but I don't actually think she would be a better president than Obama. Of course, I will vote for either in November. I feel that Obama will win the nomination and the presidency, but in the meantime I am going to have to stop reading so much about xGate or I will lose my mind.