Letters to the Editor
-
@UsedtobeKristin
I cited a number of story lines you could've taken up if you were remotely serious in challenging my contention that Obama has gotten a raw deal in the press. Clearly you're not serious about it. As regards the establishment, I doubt very much you have any idea what you're talking about. Hillary has locked up the establishment well in advance in a number of key states- certainly to include Nevada, California, New York- and advocacy groups, (notably Latino and Jewish), the extent of the import of which has only begun to dawn on me. Ask yourself how many endorsements Obama had coming out of the gate from unions or politicians or anyone- practically none. To the extent he's become establishment, is due to his success. Whereas nearly all the support for Clinton was locked in plenty far back. Obama IS the establishment? Don't blame me for the fact that you believe whatever Bill Clinton, paragon of credibility, tells you.
-
Not So Much 'Thrasher' As 'Flounder'
Y'all sound p!ssed off at something-or-other but you're coming off like the Stick from her Confederate Flag Rant t'other day. Ole Stick was zonkered out of her skull -- look at her eyes and you can see that this woman has problems -- but on The-Talking-Chin Program she was definitely under the influence of something besides Carletons. Thrasher, suggest a few cups of hot coffee and a little rehab. Maybe sort some of your issues out . . .
-
Tired topic on MLK Day...
Yawn....
-
Brilliant!
I keep hearing that the Obama campaign is Just Brilliant because of all these appeals to the "moderate right" he's been making, whether it is his apparent praise of Reagan or making this effort to state his Christianity just like Huckabee does.
Well. I don't know. Maybe it's working, maybe it isn't. But it's got the mouth-breathers all in a lather, and it's giving the Clintons plenty of heartburn, too. So maybe it doesn't matter all that much if it "works" -- ie: gets him votes. Maybe the Brilliance is in getting people talking, and getting some people to think now and again.
As for Huckabee's Christian Leadership pleading. Yes? So? He's a Southern Baptist Minister, isn't he? One would expect him to state as much and he hasn't disappointed.
Expectations met.
-
Sorry seems to be the hardest word...
Totoro,
Sorry man. I honestly thought you were writing a spoof. I certainly never intended to make fun of someone who was actually saying something nice on this site. I guess the tone was just so unexpected. It's rare these days for anyone to thank another for having helped them work something out. In a sense the innocent quality of your comments (which I took as satirical) threw me completely off course.
Actually, I'm glad you had something so nice to say about Glenn. He seems to really be getting hit about the head and shoulders today.
Hope there's no hard feelings. I'll leave the literary criticism to others in the future.
Please accept my apologies.
-
Committed vs Leader
Glenn, I enjoy all your posts and usually agree at least somewhat with almost all of them. On this one, you are totally off. (Please note, I am NOT a definite Obama supporter -- not that it maters here in Michigan, where only Clinton and Kucinich appeared on the primary ballot).
Just look at the phrasing. Huckabee runs as a "Christian LEADER." Message: you are my flock. If you call yourself a Christian, you must vote for me.
Obama runs (in SC only) as a "Committed Christian." Message: I'm one of you. I'll listen to you. We can talk with each other.
Sorry, the messages are completely different, one authoritative (if not authoritarian), the other democratic with a small-d, at least in the SC context. It would be nice if someone could run in SC as an "Uncommitted Secular Humanist" but that ain't gonna happen any time soon.
If you think this is just obscure parsing of basically indistinguishable messages, then you haven't spent enough time deciphering coded Christian messages that anyone who lives in that world will recognize and understand instantly.
-
Wow, you really are a horse's ass who has completely missed the point
Nobody cares if ol' Huck campaigns as a Christian or if Obama campaigns as a Christian. What makes them different is that Huck has suggested making the U.S. Constitution reflect judeo-chrstian biblical mumbo-jumbo.
So basically you've uncovered the fact that Huck and Obama are both Christians and that they are pointing that out in a heavily evangelical state. Wow, Woodward and Bernstein look out! Glen Greenwald is blowing the cover off this one!
Jackass.
P.S. I am not even an Obama supporter and this is still a patently stupid waste of bandwidth
-
Getting Your Religion Straight Off the Buckle
This sort of thing is why I had said if it were Obama against Huckabee, I'd vote Huckabee and get my religion straight from the buckle of the Bible Belt. Since I said that, Huckabee veered more strongly into vulgarity and God, all wrapped together. He advocated conforming the Constitution to the word of the "living God," and he made vulgar comments about the use of the flag pole on which the Confederate war flag would fly if anyone tried to tell South Carolinians anything about which flag to fly. So, my joke about voting for Huckabee suddenly rang hollow. That doesn't mean Obama's appeals laying claim to support because he is a "committed Christian" do not ring as hollow as the vulgarity and race appeal of Huckabee. I'd like to see this country recover its old understandings of the place of religion in one's private life and have more people remember that advertising one's piety is a great way to prove you don't have any.
-
Majorajam
I think that Glenn's own point is not that he's "right" about his criticism of Obama--but that it's okay to raise the question--for people to ask themselves the question, is it hypocritical to be okay with one kind of religious message and not okay with another....
I think that you're right--his opinion is flawed/wrong/whatever (IF that is his opinion) because I think there's a legitimate reason that Obama's context is different....you're right...
But Glenn always talks about free speech and I think Obama supporters (myself included) need to realize the difference between a hateful attack (like the push phone calls) and just the kind of question that might occur to someone--even to me if I stumbled across those South Carolina pamphelets.
While I 100% agree with you that Obama has reason to print them, if you had accidentally run across them as Glenn may have, do you think it might have occurred to you to wonder--am I nuts? This makes me feel uncomfortable....
I think that's the extent of his point. It's just a free speech/ability to scrutinize a candidate subject. I shouldn't say "just" because this is important. internecine fighting between people who support the same person (although they might critique them differently) doesn't help the person to get elected.
I don't think your opinion is at all wrong--just that Glenn is focusing on a different angle and that's what makes the difference. Does this make sense?