Letters to the Editor
-
S.C. White Vote
Obama got more white votes than Clinton. Edwards received significant white votes. When polled a majority of Edwards voters would support Obama over Clinton. Clinton has been shown to be behind all Republicans in the general election. Democrats woul be on a suicide mission to support Clinton. Most dems would never vote for her,myself, my kids and my husband included. I would vote for a third party. She has the same voting record in the Senate as John McCain. Why bother supporting her when we have Pelossi and Harry Reid .
-
DCLaw1
Also, when you watch that video of Clinton making the remarks, note the head-wagging condescension. He obviously did not mean the comment as a compliment.
And, to add to this point, the question that he was asked had nothing to do with Jesse Jackson or anything else. The question was: "What does it say about Obama that there needs to be two of you to beat him"? (paraphrasing).
He became visibly angry, scoffed at the question, and THEN used the Jackson comparison. It was, on top of everything else, a total nonsequtior -- just a way to demean Obama in order to lash out at the question.
-
Wow
Is it just me, or is there an extraordinarily high number of people suffering from a lowered reading comprehension here today? I can't believe how many times the same point has been gone over and explained...it's quite distressing. I'm used to a university level of discourse on this blog, not kindergarden.
That said, I'm pretty distressed to see the number of people getting so worked up. Don't waste all your energy on some of the fake issues being used to divide people, there are a lot of serious ones out there.
-
Wow
Is it just me, or is there an extraordinarily high number of people suffering from a lowered reading comprehension here today? I can't believe how many times the same point has been gone over and explained...it's quite distressing. I'm used to a university level of discourse on this blog, not kindergarden.
That said, I'm pretty distressed to see the number of people getting so worked up. Don't waste all your energy on some of the fake issues being used to divide people, there are a lot of serious ones out there.
-
For the record...
But today, I criticize one the Clintons and now suddenly I'm the opposite -- a mindless spewer of the Media's anti-Clinton cliches incapable of thinking for myself.
Don't you realize how unbelievably stupid what you're saying is?
I would have thought that the last seven years would have taught everyone how disgusting it is when people renounce their critical faculties in order to lend blind faith to a political leader -- and to believe that their chosen leader cannot err -- and that anyone who criticizes their Leader must be ill-intentioned -- but I am amazed by how much of that behavior is copied by adherents of one candidate or another in the primaries. And I find it equally disgusting.
For the record, I'm voting for Obama. The fact that I criticize the MSM -- and Salon's -- reporting of Bill Clinton' and the Clinton campaign's supposed race-baiting without providing meaningful evidence does not, in fact, render me a Clinton supporter. So, no, Glenn, I don't realize how unbelievably stupid what I'm saying is. Why don't you educate me, O Great Pundit of Foot In Mouth!
-
My apologies
I actually have no idea how that got posted twice.
-
@ DCLaw1
My speakers are broke and I don't watch tee vee, but I did read the quote in its entirety and nothing in there indicates that he was disparaging Obama by comparing him to Jackson. To prove that, you would have to denigrate Jackson. That his campaign didn't do as well by the standards of our time is not evidence. The text itself (alone) just does not support Glenn's conclusion.
It is like taking someone to trial and saying: "Ya know, You Honor, we suspect he may have meant this comment to mean such and such, but we can't get a damned person to swear under oath that he did, but let's just presume him guilty 'cause it will make everything easier for the point we want to make."
And this has been going on and on in the media and in both campaigns if you want to use unsupported statements and gestures and speculations as evidence.
Just like when the media implied that Hillary Clinton sobbed. Well, she didn't. That was a fairy tale.
I say this as someone who still supports Edwards, even though he may have benefited from some redneck sexist's and racist's vote. What should I do, start scrubbing my hands obsessively and furiously, cry "out, out damned spot?"
-
Follow the Leader
Thrasher wrote: "Hillary, Kerry, Edwards simply do not have what it takes to take our country into this new world order.. White voters have now turned the corner it is therefore critical now that Obama show more assertive and agressive leadership moments, he has convinced White voters a Black man with passion and grit is not to be feared but followed..."
This is the kind of rhetoric from Obama supporters that scares me. They want a Leader, someone who will help them build the New World Order. I just want a competent President who can keep the country relatively safe and prosperous. I guess some people want more from their politicians than others. But I definitely don't want to be LED anywhere by anyone. That's Rudy Giuliani rhetoric.
This passage is also condescending to white voters, but what else can we expect from Thrasher?
-
hey Glenn
Let your post speak for itself. You're not helping your cause by wading into this feedback frenzy. Just sounds like a lot of post-hoc rationalizing.
-
bystander
You are right; that is bizarre. I haven't been reading today's thread, but this kind of vague, canned response you received from Obama makes me respect Glenn's point all the more.
Last night I was thrilled after hearing Obama's speech. It "inspired" me.
Others are inspired by Clinton.
But the minute we can't critique those who lead us -- even those who inspire us -- we give up our "faculties" and our responsibility as citizens.
After reading the letter you received, I am certainly thinking critically about Obama.
Note: "thinking critically about" does not mean that I will never vote for the person, wish to personally disparage them, etc. It means I am thinking critically about a policy point a candidate is making (or avoiding) and evaluating how that reflects on what the candidate will or will not do in office.
This is not personal. It's about being clear-headed.
Moreover, one can be clear headed and still recognize that both candidates are under a great deal of pressure from our media and from neo-conservatives. One can recognize the pressure (the insults directed at both sides etc.) and still critique the candidates.
The FISA issue grounds me. Ultimately, we as "the people" have the responsibility to act in order to protect our Constitution. Ultimately, as the letter bystander forwarded unintentionally suggests, we are not going elect anyone who will take that responsibility off our hands.
So we are left with candidates to vote for who will be better than Bush, and we are left with our own power to think and act that is considerably more heartening.
Thanks for forwarding the letter and for your thoughtful response.
Peace,
Laura