Letters to the Editor
-
Some people...
The wingnuts somehow found it in their hearts to elect a cokehead to the Presidency. Twice.
And the obvious retort to that is that the "cokehead" had an R after his name and didn't write a book about his cokehead experiences to reference.
-
By all means...
...if you want another "Lesser of two evils" election, vote for Hillary.
...if you want to give a completely fractured GOP the one thing that can unify them, vote for Hillary.
...if you think sharing a vajayjay is more imporant than stopping a Neocon 3rd term and ruining the Supreme Court for another 30 years, vote for Hillary.
...if you want to alienate a whole new generation that dared to hope again, then by all means proceed with the coronation and vote for Hillary.
...if you think Thomas Jefferson was naive when he warned against dynastic rule, vote for Hillary.
This former Edwards supporter is voting for Obama on Tuesday. I want to win in November, and Clinton is less likely to win. I'm certain she'll get clobbered, actually.
Obama is bulletproof. What bad things can you say about him? If they resort to more "Black Osama" shit, at least that openly draws out their blatant racism and bigotry. That's easy to combat. Draw out the ugliest aspects out of your opponent and it will be all the more easy to vanquish him.
-
Can't stand it
what a bunch of spineless ninnies, weak-kneed women pandering to a peacock's verbal plummage. As long as women settle for the back of the bus, nothing will really change.
What's next? Burkas on sale at Wal-Mart?
-
Obama, Rove and Harry and Louise
Obama's attack on it really did channel Harry and Louise—
Yeah, it's amazing isn't it. Rove writes an editorial of free advice for the Obama campaign suggesting they run merciless and constant personal attacks on HRC and suddenly Obama is doing that AND engaging in a wealth of other sleazy tactics straight out of the GOP playbook - WHILE his campaign accuses Clinton of doing what they're doing.
Makes you wonder what Rove is doing these days and where Obama's superbowl money is coming from, now doesn't it.
-
Are democratic women REALLY arguing vagina versus penis????
I'm amazed at the verbiage given over to why women should/shouldn't vote for another woman. Would you vote for Rice? Coulter? Would Thatcher have made you happy? Just voting for one persuasion of genitals over the other is not necessarily a brilliant or admirable way to rejoice in our feminism.
But if we care to retain any of the gains feminism has made, we need to vote a Democrat into the presidency. Not only is Clinton a moderate Republican running in the wrong party, but, statistically, her negatives are so strong that she needs every independent vote to outpoll the wrong wing fascists who will put everything they have into defeating her, even if they have to Diebold her.
At this point, the only Democrat who can run away with the election is Obama. For all his faults, he is not the schismatic figure Clinton has always been, from her chocolate chip cookies to her installation as a Senator from a state she'd never lived in. Sure, he's no Kucinich, and no Edwards, but he's way better than our alternatives, including another eight years of Republican oligarchy.
-
Tough Decision
When faced with two seemingly equal choices, the typical response is to ultimately put down the choice not taken. Suddenly the 2nd choice becomes "damaged goods".
In this case I have chosen Hillary Clinton, but in no way is Barack Obama damaged goods. He is also an excellent choice and I'll support him if he wins the nomination.
But I must share a sense of mystery about why Hillary Clinton draws such enmity. I think she is focused, intelligent and a mature and caring person . I think her life experience is a plus as is her political experience - both elected and unelected. Yet she is often portrayed as the Antichrist, venal, dishonest and craven in her quest to be president.
The hostility toward her seems unjustified; but that unremitting hostility may prevent her from receiving the nomination. What seems odd to me is that Sen. Obama is portrayed as representing fresh new ideas and an advocate for change.
Yet when I examine both their records, I don't see much difference. And with partisan politics the basic fabric of our country, I don't see Sen. Obama bringing the country together any more than Sen. Clinton. Politics is tough in the U.S. and entrenched positions won't go away just because someone speaks well.
In my opinion neither candidate, and especially no Republican candidate, has talked about the really tough issues our country faces such as:
How do we take our place as a member of the world community and not as the one calling all the shots? Our brief time as the one calling the shots is over.
How do we deal with the misguided idea that terrorism is the key issue for our country? We have about bankrupted ourselves in this utterly misguided attempt to control that which we don't understand and can't fix.
How are we as a nation going to deal with global warming and truly protect the future for our children?
What are we going to do about rebuilding our infrastructure such as roads, bridges, underground pipes and crumbling levees and weakened dams?
What are we going to do about vastly increasing our renewable energy resources?
Truthfully neither Obama or Clinton have talked much about these issues. So the idea that Sen.Obama is going to solve these problems seems far fetched to me, Charisma doesn't solve problems not faced in the first place. Does this mean that Sen. Clinton will do any better? I don't know, but I feel she has the goods to do the job.
I like Sen. Obama and have heard him speak in person, ans will support him if he's nominated. However, I am skeptical about good talkers. Too often they can't really deliver - which is why I support Hillary Clinton because I believe she more fully understands the issue we need to deal with.