Letters to the Editor
-
Katetex.
"I've been convinced ever since SC that Obama's campaign has engineered the whole rotten Clintons-as-racists deal. And I positively loathe him for it."
You've been proven wrong on this point in the past, and you've just ignored all data that didn't fit your desired view of things. But, hey, might as well keep repeating it until it sounds true, right? In the memorable words of George Costanza, it's not a lie if you believe it.
The thing that's so pathetic about many virulent online Clinton supporters at this point is that they've completely fled the reality-based community. They display exactly the same type of wingnuttery and endless parroting of transparently false talking points that we heard from the Dubya folk about Iraq.
Well, I doubt this will pierce your protective bubble, but guess what? It's over. And mind you, I take the bold tag very seriously.
If you need another data point, consider Speaker Pelosi's remarks today to George Stephanopoulos, where she -- like Biden, Richardson, and Clyburn before her -- said the supers will fall in line behind the pledged delegate leader, regardless of the popular vote count. [http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/03/pelosis-delegat.html]
The Clinton campaign has already conceded the pledged delegate lead, hence the daily ridiculousness of their small caucus, big state, red state, blue state flailing. It's OVER. Just like Dubya in Iraq, the Clinton team totally blew it, due mainly to hubris, poor planning, the deluded notion of being "greeted as liberators," and the utter lack of a Plan B. And, like Dubya in Iraq, Team Clinton keeps blathering nonsense endlessly to obfuscate while moving the goalposts around to try to eke out a victory out of a miserable, botched failure.
It's OVER. I guess I have to keep saying it and saying it, so it pierces through your freshly-spun cocoons. Katetex and the rest of the Clinton dead-enders, wrap your mind around it, for your own sakes. And if you've whipped yourself into such a righteous froth that you refuse to vote for Obama in November, well, then I find it hard to take all the protestations of femininism around here seriously.
But, in any case, get used to Sen. Obama as our nominee, and, in January, Sen. Obama as our president.
And don't worry. It'll be alright.
-
@Kate
Well, I don't share your premises, so I can't enjoy your conclusions. I agree his remark was extremely inappropriate. But I don't consider it the DeathStar either.
-
KcM: The Oz Theory of Politics
The thing that's so pathetic about many virulent online Clinton supporters at this point is that they've completely fled the reality-based community. They display exactly the same type of wingnuttery and endless parroting of transparently false talking points that we heard from the Dubya folk about Iraq.
Nice try, KcM, but this is just beneath-the-belt fear-mongering on your part. You can work very hard to connect us or compare us to what Bush has wreaked, but it's still a low blow and not at all true. This isn't like you. I really do expect a little more from you than the "wingnuttery" I see from Obama's followers on this board and others. Frankly, it's way over the top and disappointing.
Well, I doubt this will pierce your protective bubble, but guess what? It's over. And mind you, I take the bold tag very seriously.
It isn't "over" by any stretch. You can repeat it ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it so and it isn't. It isn't necessary to paint Clinton supporters into some groupthink mentality, accusing us -- basically -- of being stupid/inept/deluded/unsophisticated [fill in the blank]. We simply don't "hup-to" for Obama. No need to patronize us for "fundamentally" disagreeing.
You (Obama followers) think you have all the answers, all the points, all the justifications, all the excuses for him: his less-than-stellar U.S. Senate record, his appalling lack of judgment (Rezko, Wright), his flip-flops on Iraq, inconsistencies and political convenience (or conversion) on many other issues, and his ducking votes in the Illinois Senate and the U.S. Senate. But birds do come home to roost.
It always amazes me that the far left of the Democratic Party never seems to learn a thing from election to election -- the definition of insanity -- and manages always to shoot itself and the Democrats in the foot every single time! Intriguingly, this election looks more and more like no exception. So don't frost that "Obama presidency cake" just yet.
-
Don't Forget Hillary's Whiteness
I find it strange and suspect that so many of the letter responses (at least the Editor's Choice letters) defend Ferraro, but are completely blind to Hillary Clinton being white and the importance of her whiteness to her candidacy.
Honestly, what were the odds that a black man might make it as far as Obama has? In whatever small ways it may have benefitted him, even to the extent that the idea of the first black president may captivate some Americans, being black had to work against Obama in a thousand different ways on his path to this point in time. So to say that overall Obama's race has benefitted him is absurd.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton certainly would not be where she is if she were not white. And should certainly would not be a former first lady if she were not white. No one ever mentions her whiteness. Long before Ferraro ever opened her mouth, this was apparent. Obama has been frequently subject to a pseudo-feminist critique, in which he was portrayed as ultimately just another man, even if he's black. But no one ever portrays Hillary as just another white person running for president.
And yet to this day, white women in the U.S. make more money and hold more positions of power, by far, than black men. Who is really the privileged one?
-
@Kate Tex
The battle has been joined; I agree with virtually all your conclusions. I was the chief negotiator for a fortune 500 (one time Dow Jones) company for 35 years. Sadly I can’t claim the obviously supernatural I.Q. of KcM, but I didn’t feel guilty cashing my paycheck either.
Of all the fine qualities Obama has been blessed with, and reported ad nauseum, the one that hasn’t gotten enough scrutiny is his brilliance. He is brilliant. That was the first thing I noticed about him, and watching the Clinton campaign’s myopia toward that fact filled me with dread and didn’t make me feel any better that I was proven right as they stumbled along on a (probably) mortally flawed strategy. Now this has nothing to do with who would be the better President; just who would probably win.
If you compare this campaign to a game of chess, the winner isn’t necessarily a better person, just a better chess player. I compare it to Henry Gondoff (Barrack) and Doyle Lonnegan (Hillary) the players in that great movie, “The Sting.” Just to remind you, Gondoff was played by Paul Newman while Lonnegan was played by Robert Shaw. Lonnegan was your typical, well-to-do gangster who grew increasingly frustrated because his carefully planned heist got repeatedly interrupted and rattled by inexplicable snafus. They weren’t inexplicable to Gondoff who after all was “The Con Man.” Gondoff knew, and stated, in order for a “Con” to be successful it had to be 100% believable. To be 100% anything…..takes brilliance. Enter Barrack Obama.
I had this discussion with a group of three psychiatrists and one psychologist. The following are some points expressed during several sessions.
1. Born multi-racial, highly intelligent father abandoned family when Barrack was two years old…….the kid grew up with “issues.” (Bill Clinton’s father, a drunk, also “abandoned” young Bill by getting killed in a car accident)
2. The Oedipus card in full play, blaming mother for father’s leaving, leaves young Barrack with an obsession to prove father wrong for leaving, and a hatred towards women. Later marries strong willed, physically daunting, domineering woman.
3. Yes, probably did start planning for the Presidency at a very young age.
4. An average student early on, then using improving grades, affirmative action, and legacy, transfers up to the social status schools from Occidental to Columbia, to Harvard; Major, political science. At Harvard Law, confirms his political acumen by running for and being elected Pres. Law Review.
5. Writes memoirs at the exceptionally young age of 33, wherein he “confesses” to youthful indiscretions, a must for aspiring politicians.
6. Gains political office in Chicago through connections with questionable characters, ruthless opposition research, suspicious elimination of opponents (petition challenges, personal revelations, etc.) The “Messiah” tag came later, certainly not from his Chicago days.
7. So far he shows just ruthless ambition and cunning, 2004 convention speech, first public hint of “brilliance.”
8. Defeats a joke, Alan Keyes, by 50 points to become Senator.
9. Forms Presidential “kitchen committee” prior to being sworn in as Senator.
10. The strategy, the plan, the coalition, “The Sting”
a. Flip the Blacks, concoct Clinton/racist canard
b. Use spellbinding oration and military ground organization
to mobilize the naive, history challenged, “youth,” using
club/cult game theory, giving out prizes, points, and titles.
Issues not needed.
c. Exacerbate and promote inherent Hillary Hatred.
d. Senate votes calculated to be non controversial. (“absent” but
assails Kyle/Lieberman, co-sponsors virtually identical bill.)
A tip of the nose to The Candy Man/ Pied Piper/ Elmer Gantry
Barrack Hussein Obama
He pulled it off.
Note: It was just a parlor game.....Flame away