Letters to the Editor
-
I didn't know I had a curfew!
To pieceofcake, are you the only one that can stay up late? Your comment after is so ignorant and baseless! I still have yet to see the "educated and elite" followers that the media claims is the phenomenon behind Obama! If that is educated, I might as well give up! I feel like I am arguing with a wall! I am a Texan that is NOTHING like Bush! I am not a liberal head in the cloud deludional NUT either! I am balanced and right in the center...unlike Obama and his followers!
-
come on
I know I was trying to "pull your leg" and I regret that -
I gladly will vote for Hillary if she makes it -
But I also know her and you're "war program"
(how ever you would like to explain it) is absolutely outdated!
-
Ms. Traister (and Texas Democrat)
First: Ms. Traister,
Your musings about Hillary being--to paraphrase--just another one of the women coming down the pike, is exactly the point!
I get the pull that traditional feminists feel to vote for Hillary. Really I do. And, for the time being I can even consider your feelings without getting all uppity about the horrific ways academic feminism has trivialized and dumbed down what should be a noble cause. But, there are many current elected officials of the female persuasion who could and will be viable candidates for high office now or in the near future. I find it impossible to think that this country will not soon have a woman president.
BUT, of all of the black leaders currently holding elected office (or defacto positions of leadership within the black community) I can't think of a single one who could appeal to such a broad swath of Americans as can Barack Obama! (and certainly Hillary does not appeal to as broad a spectrum as does Obama--poll after poll indicates that)
That said, I feel strongly that one must put Ms. Clinton's campaign into context. That means understanding that "real change" cannot possibly come from the woman who coined the term "vast Right Wing conspiracy". Forget that she was totally right (she was!); she embodies what the Right loathes; she stands for everything the Right wished it had accomplished under Gingrich and didn't. Hillary Clinton will be President Deadlock number 3 of 3!!! Mark my words!
Of the remaining candidates (and I believe strongly that the truly best candidates are all out of the race at this point) Obama really is the only one who has the potential to change the tone in Washington.
You'll have plenty of chances to vote for a woman in the near future--they're around 50% of the population, don't you know?; not so many chances to vote for an electable black man in the coming 10 to 15 years if I had to guess.
As for T.D. (I love typing that just now knowing you're from Texas--Tony Dorsett was my childhood idol!!!), your statement about your anger justifying a flawed vote demonstrates exactly why we shouldn't vote for Clinton. Isn't the whole point of being an elected official to reasonably evaluate all of the evidence and make decisions based solely on the facts? I get that YOU were pissed, and therefore prone to voting to support a president you wouldn't otherwise get in bed with--I should hope that's why you're not holding public office. Hillary is. She should have done some more legwork. She (and everyone else in Congress) should have refused to pass judgement until they had all of the information. She didn't. That seals the deal in my book: I won't vote for her. Period. (honestly, if she's the nominee, I'm not sure I could vote for her in November. That would be the first time since I was old enough to vote (Dukakis) that I skipped out on a presidential election.
I'm not the only one, I'm quite sure. Democrats take heed!
-
Texas Dem
Here is the central philosophy of "Centrism."
First, you read a compromise. Then you go to the negotiating table so that you can compromise some more.
If anyone points out that you have achieved bugger all, you call them nuts for you know, actually wanting a party which will actually achieve anything.
Meanwhile, the rightwing, drags America into being a war-mad theocracy which engages in torture while leaving its poorest to forage whenever a disaster hits.
-
@Texas Democrat
pieceofcake, are you the only one that can stay up late? Your comment after is so ignorant and baseless! I still have yet to see the "educated and elite" followers that the media claims is the phenomenon behind Obama! If that is educated, I might as well give up! I feel like I am arguing with a wall! I am a Texan that is NOTHING like Bush! I am not a liberal head in the cloud deludional NUT either! I am balanced and right in the center...unlike Obama and his followers!
My sentiments exactly. As I see it the Obama fevered fall into two categories:
1) the fringe who insist so immaturely and despite all evidence that Mrs. Clinton is responsible for Iraq. (no reason will talk 'em out of it either).
2) children under 21 who still don't understand the electoral vote and that popularity in Berkely and San Francisco ain't going to help you in that 2500 miles from Idaho to Georgia.
You can't tell them the corporate media wants a candidate easy for the Republicans to take down. They're working hard to get Hillary out of the way. I saw overstuffed Russert and some of the GOP clowns giggling about Obama "catching up and maybe passing" Hillary in California. All smug and estatic as if they'd been popping esctasy.
-
Anon 03:05 AM
The Republicans are so focussed on Hillary because they WANT the Dems to elect Hillary.
It is pretty much the same as when Osama was releasing tapes whenever a critical election happened - he would voice his support for the Dems and ensure the Republicans a few votes.
-
anon please read
- my post - don't be afraid!
-
feminist first
I would vote Republican if they ran a woman. It is pathetic that a country like ours has been led by men alone for the entirety of its history. Practically every other democracy in the world got over this hurdle ages ago. I am not exaggerating, either - if the Republicans wanted to get one swing vote, all they'd have to do would be send a woman to do the job.