Letters to the Editor
-
Isn't it too late to worry about whether the Clintons have left a racist legacy?
"It would be awful to see the Clintons depart this campaign with the stain of racial division among Democrats as their legacy."
The point of this article seem snachronistic. It seems to me it is already too late to avoid their legacy being racial division. Due to Bill Clinton's 'Jesse Jackson won South Carolina (too)' and to all his and Hillary's comments relative to race and innuendo re: religion or ethnicity (Hillary: 'He isn't a Muslim -- as far as I know.') and all the knife-jabbing comments since,including H's on non-college educated, hard-working white voters who vote for her have made her completely unelectable, not only with a raciallly-tainted legacy.
Given her grasping, ruthless mean-spiritedness, I cannot understand why virtually every Obama-supporter or neutral player (such as John Edwards today and Robert Scheer today) says they 'admire both of them considerably). How can one admire aomeone who threatens to use nuclear weapons* and ruin a whole country, taking with it millions of ordinary innocent people just going along minding their own business?
*A few months ago, with a sureness and arrogance born of her belief that she was 'the presumptive nominee', she answered a question about Iran, turning toward the camersa with a hard, cold face and voice and said, 'Nothing is off the table.' This was chilling.
It used to be that there was a large and growing movement against nuclear weaponry across this country. (See Helen Caldicott, Australia.) Where has that gone? Clinton's remarks are shocking, but barely covered. They are taken almost as normal. (Today I even heard -- on To the Point with Warren Olney, KCRW) someone say that her comment 'reassured a lot of people' -- that she would bomb and 'obliterate' Iran (if it bombed Israel). She threatens the death penalty to the leaders of Iran for bombing Israel. But she willy nilly threatens the death penalty to everyone in Iran.
And yet it virtually goes over people's heads, along with her and her cohorts' racist comments. Hasn't she done enough to be relieved of 'admiration' by anyone by now?
-
@Shawn
Actually, the NW corner of Indiana, the last piece to get counted was not as heavily for Obama as I expected it might be and you're quite wrong, he did not win there by a landslide and got fewer delegates there than you think:
http://politicalmaps.org/indiana-primary-maps-may-6-2008/
I know there's no arguing with you about this stuff and I'm really posting this for others to consider but the voting demographics in Indiana made me feel quite good about Obama's chance to build a large and diverse base in November.
And, if you look at similar maps of North Carolina you'll see he got more of the votes he wasn't supposed to get there which adds to my optimism.
What many fail to take into consideration in looking at his campaign is his experience and Axelrod's experience doing grassroots community organizing. His "machine" really is bottom up and that's what's winning him the nomination.
-
@rwanderman
great post
-
Let's make a deal
Hillary will drop out as candidate as soon as Obama writes her a check for $11 million to make her "whole". Hillary will also want veto power over the VP slot so no woman can leap-frog over her in the national spotlight. In exchange she will start making "nice" and get behind Obama.
-
ShawnWM, schoolin the 'paths!
What many fail to take into consideration in looking at his campaign is his experience and Axelrod's experience doing grassroots community organizing. His "machine" really is bottom up and that's what's winning him the nomination.
How'd that work out for Barack Dukakis in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Indiana? How's it going to work out in West Virginia and Kentucky? Spending that 5:1 on community organizing and getting huge, embarrassing defeats to Clinton in huge swing states out of it?
Great organization and management there. Do you really want them running this country?
-
"Republican Victory Determined to Strike in the US"
Barack Dukakis the Precious is going to lose, folks.
You won't be able to pretend you didn't have all the data you need at your disposal to see it and even prevent it.
You're going to look as idiotic as Condoleeza Rice, standing there holding your "determined to strike" memo, trying to "hope" your way to a victory.
Pathologicial.
-
Obama: "I've been to 57 states"
Now Barack is saying he has been to 57 states.
Accept it or reveal that you're a RACIST.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws
-
Unelectable = Black
The more insidious and constant racial game the Clintons have played throughout is the charge that Obama is "unelectable". I don't remember ever having heard that said about one candidate by another candidate of the same party. It really isn't an argument at all, but an ad hominem charge that, lacking specific reasons, to my ear sounds equivalent to "he can't be elected because he's black".
You don't have to have big racially sensitive ears to hear that particular dog whistle.
-
@lolcait on "57 states"
Gosh, I wonder if Obama really thinks there's 57 states?
-
rphillips111
Bullshit boetie.
The press sided with neither candidates, and anyone claiming Obama had a soft and easy time of it obviously hasn't noticed him having to defend his pastor - or the fact free allegations in the media surrounding his association with Rezko.
Meanwhile eight years of baggage from Clinton's time as first lady and any serious analysis of her years in the Senate have been totally waved off.
You guys like to talk about having the vetted candidate: Where has there been a real critical look at her Senate career? Online where people like me have picked apart certain bits of her legislation because we follow specialist news sources as well as the MSM. If you are a gamer, chances are you do not like Hillary Clinton for reasons that the average MSM news follower has never even heard of.
Hillary gets a free ride on being the "Experienced candidate" and the "bright candidate" amongst low information voters - well Kyl Lieberman didn't speak of a lot of her ability to learn from experience and her reasoning during the Hot Coffee debacle and its sequel in the Wii version of Hitman 2 (Where she thinks the Wiimote is going to train up a generation of killers) don't exactly fill me with confidence in her ability to think.
There has been a bit on how she has run her campaign, and the odd occasional bit of sensationalism whenever her claims on experience have met the slightest bit of examination. You can't expect the press to not cover her being caught out lying about being shot at - or one of the primary players in Irish peace process telling the world she lied about that one too.
She suffered a bit from conservative talking heads not liking her, how about when this race started and a certain figure well liked by Joan Walsh singing "Barrack the Magic Negro"?
How about certain conservatives outright campaigning for her? Ann Coulter endorsed Hillary Clinton and Rupert Murdoch raised funds for her.
And that's not even getting into how John Edwards beat her in the first race and yet it was still a race between Hillary and Obama.
You Hillary supporters like blaming everything except your candidate and how poorly run her campaign has been - maybe it is time that you stopped doing that and started thinking about where things really went wrong.
And proclaiming the caucuses undemocratic? Is there a bar to you getting off your fat ass and going to caucus? No - there is not. It might not be convenient to you but it isn't convenient for anybody else either.
The rules were set out before the race was run and you Hillary supporters don't like them because your candidate is losing under them. Proportional representation was great, right up until Hillary started losing.
Obama leads in states won, in the popular vote, in delegates, and in superdelegates according to ABC yet the rules must be changed to suit Hillary Clinton.