Letters to the Editor
-
Socs and Twigs
Are you sill having difficulty or is this a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. I made four points. You selected two but you left out the other two (a) a messianic figure and (b) a compliant media. I really don't have to wonder why you'd try to shy away from those.
-
I'm voting for Edwards.
Neither Clinton nor Obama has shown me they'll stick up for our interests against the corporations, so it's still Edwards for me. Let them fight it out on the floor of the convention.
-
Madame Defarge
That's because there has been little negative campaigning AGAINST Obama....YET!
That's because he wears the mesmerizing effect of being a black Kennedy and MLK wrapped up into one as a perfect idealistic shield from our past against anyone really scrutinizing him seriously. Anyone criticizes that, they're racist.
Someone said something a while back about Hitler and while I in no way would equate him to that horrible man, the propaganda that Obama uses and the technique of mesmerizing people into by using MLK's voice and the promise of that dream, and people just turn loyally and follow, ignoring anything of substance that could possibly be brought to bear against him.
Anybody who symbolizes those great things of course is given a free ride without objection. As a matter of fact, ANY objection, even it be rational or factual, is denied out of hand.
Sorry, but that's manipulation at it's most frightening. When people cannot even see it because they're lost in the idyllic dream of what Obama knows they want to see.
-
Thank You, Rebecca
Me, too. All of it.
-
Sesanders and that Iraq vote...
Ah, the old "if only Hillary knew then what we know now, she would never have voted for the Iraq war" excuse.
Obama had access to the same information and made the correct conclusion.
And Hillary could have had access to more information if she'd wanted it. A special NIE was produced for senators before the vote to authorize the war. You had to go sign in at a special secure room and read the report yourself. Aides were not allowed to read it for you.
Sen. Bob Graham of Florida signed in and read the report. He voted "no" on the war authorization. (And his constituents, I point out, are a good bit more conservative than Hillary's.) Same with Dick Durbin.
Hillary didn't even go read the damn thing.
So don't try to excuse her vote with "she didn't have enough information." The information was out there.
-
anon
so, you determine who is a messiah and who's compliant ... it's just really not a relevant or intelligent conversation. Sorry.
really pleez - can you discuss an issue or something? Thing is with issues is that there are FACTS tied to them, which is why, I believe Clinton supporters shy away from issues and ramble on about these MORONIC propositions.
Give me a break, really. You are absurd & I completely understand why you choose to not identify yourself.
-
Change is hard
Everyone in the Democratic party, along with many independents and even some Republicans, agree that the country has been headed down the wrong track for seven, very long years. The question is, who, once elected, will be able to convince the American people to back the changes that are so desparately needed.
This is where Obama's inspirational style and leadership qualities become all important. The next president will have to convince Congress, to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, adopt a plan that will guarantee health insurance for everyone who wants it, tackle climate change, and a host of other important projects.
The fact that Obama has the backing of Teddy Kennedy, one of the most senior and respected members of the Senate, will help him a great deal. But it is also, Obama's ability to get people, of all political persuasions to listen, that will make him the best choice for president.
Those that wish to denigrate his immense talent to inspire, forget that in order to get anything done in Washington, the president needs the cooperation of both parties. Obama seems to have an innate ability, to not only deflect criticism, but to win people over. The fact that so many people like him, even though they may not agree with him, shouldn't be underestimated, when it comes to the ability to govern.
Who do you think will be better able to ask the American people to make sacrifices, while at the same time, bring them together?
-
AJ Calhoun
You post on page one rocked. Thank you, sir.
-
I've decided
Just finished reading your article, Rebecca, and, before that, Stanley Fish's piece in the NYTimes on the Hillary Clinton hatemongers. I, too, was for Edwards--the only, as you point out, real populist among the throng massing toward White House hopes and dreams. But after reading this thread, the articles, and reacting and reacting again, I've decided my Super Tuesday vote goes to Hillary Clinton.
-
There are HUGE reasons not to vote for Hillary - and support Obama
Obama fought successfully in the Senate to increase our investment in renewable fuels.
The Clintons received $31.3 million from uranium mining companies in Kazakhstan which invests in nuclear weapons and builds nuclear reactors around the world. This scandal had remained a secret until Clinton acknowledged it last month.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Obama rejected the Bush/Lieberman"s bill for a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran.
Hillary signed it - no surprise considering the $31.3 million she received from nuclear weapons producers
Obama’s Congressional record demonstrates his support of labor unions and working class families.
Hillary’s record is a disgrace.
As a member of Wal-Mart"s board of directors, 1986 and 1992, she remained totally silent as the world's largest retailer waged a major campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers.
An ABC News analysis of videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings shows she never once rose to defend American labor unions.
Also said nothing when John Tate, Wal-Mart's executive vice president, ranted,
"Labor unions are nothing but blood-sucking parasites living off the productive labor of people who work for a living."
June 1990 stockholders meeting, "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else,"
Her recent campaign speech New Hampshire, "Now I know that Wal-Mart's policies do not reflect the best way of doing business"
Yet ABCNews discovered $20,000 for her campaign from Wal-Mart executives.
May 20, 2007 New York Times, "Clinton maintains close ties to Wal-Mart executives. Her husband speaks frequently to Wal-Mart's current chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr. and held a private dinner at the Clinton's New York home in July 2006 for him.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1
Obama’s campaign does not accept money from greedy Health Insurance Corporations.
Hillary got $800,000 from them.
Obama introduced and passed post 911 legislation to create a centralized, federal database to allow individuals displaced by an emergency to call one phone number
Hillary shunned families of 9/11's victims. Stephen Brill, author "After 911: How America Confronted the September 12 Era," documents Hillary's attempt to peddle a falsified version of her role in the wake of 9/11.
Are you still having trouble deciding???????????????