Letters to the Editor
-
DCLaw1!
At the GOP conventions: etc.,
GOPS swap strategic "win" stories.
They plan to search-out some pretty,
rock-salamanders to put in non-bloody,
non-war-hawks coffee cups. A smashed tail.
`
I small secretion of a smashed salamander used to kill cow-pokes around the camp fires.
DCLaw1, ain't it near your bedtime? How do you do any good lawyer work if you don't 'hit' the hay-sack soon? Tomorrow will need a wide-awake lawyer. Remember Ben Franklin said 'there must be one honest lawyer somewhere' in the world.
Who ever finds one is certain to be happy. Ben F. said nature's hops and fermented brews can help a blue mood on a Monday. Anyway, I'll gather some salamanders for you to distribute in DC? I just tease. Go snore some Z-Zoe's but,
not too loudly. Don't disturb the peace. I'll dream you are playing shuffleboard tomorrow and helping some lame clients.
Good night. Close the barn door tight.
Don't sleep under the roosting chickens.
If you do that you'll stink up all of DC!
-
Shawn
Why are you now posting anonymously?
-
As will be any Democrat.
HRC's version of change. She is absolutely hated by the right
As will any Democrat be. If you can't see that than I think you must have been dead for the past 15 years. She's simply hated more because she and her husband beat them and made them shell up their first tax dollar in 12 frickin years when they got elected.
They hate her cause she can beat them - and she IS electable - she wouldn't have run if she wasn't -0 or at least she was until Obama per Karl Rove's plan insisted on playing the race card and spiltting our rote.
Now go to bed.
-
damnthatxanadu
Okay, let's split hairs. You didn't really answer my questions did you? Why go to such lengths? Because it's relevant. Actually, far more relevant than using Huckabee or evangelicals as an example. Sorry, that's a poor example. It's not like evangelicals have anything to really lose comparatively. But women do. So, why wouldn't it matter?
Of course what Clinton said was diminishing. But it's a fact. And really, what has he or Hillary really gained from this? Really? What would it gain Clinton to lose the black vote?
Of course it's relevant, because it just happened, with many parallels that you can choose to ignore if you like. Whereas your hypothetical has not and would not, so it has no bearing on anything real. Huckabee, who runs to a large extent on being an evangelical, wins a state with a high evangelical population, but is unable to translate this into wins or near-wins in other states, which have more diverse (or less evangelical) populations. Clearly, the case can be made that he won based on his evangelism, in ways that he cannot in other states, or in the general. Nothing prejudicial in saying that, because it's just a reflection of the facts.
Whereas Obama, a black man running for president (but not a "black candidate" who made race a big issue in his campaign, for better or worse both principally and politically), not only wins a state with a high black population (and wins it big, which might be accounted for largely by its high black population, but not the win itself), but a state with a 95% white population, comes very close to winning two other states with far lower black population percentage, and is catching up to the "white candidate" (ironic quotes) nationally.
So clearly, what Clinton said was BS, and yet he said it anyway. And, given how smart he is about politics, the only plausible explanation (other than, perhaps, momentary insanity and/or stupidity) is that he was deliberately trying to cast doubt on Obama's victory and chances based entirely ON race (or else why mention Jackson?), in order to diminish the effect of his SC win, make him look weaker than he actually is nationally, and scare off non-black voters. I mean, this guy grew up in a the cauldron of white southern racist politics and knows how this works. That he chose to employ it himself is shameful and sad--i.e. vote for my white wife, not the black guy who can't scale his obviously "favorite son" win into a national one.
I agree that she's probably gained nothing from this, and likely lost something. So perhaps it really was stupidity and some measure of insanity on his part, brought about by desperation and frustration (born of a sense of entitlement for past accomplishments). But it does, I think, reveal something about the man that I suspect he wishes weren't revealed.
-
@Pedinska
I was gonna beat that guy up for disrespecting you... only he kind of beat himself up on that last post.
-
Guns, Germs and Steel
It is nice to see GG err like this as it proves that he is not the infallible oracle like he appeared to be. Obama once called Hillary Clinton the Senator from Punjab; but that was not injecting race. The brouhaha over whether it was racist to mention that there had to be a partnership between MLK and LBJ for the Civil Rights legislation to pass; was not injecting race. But Bill Clinton's aside that Obama would likely be the favored son for SC's blacks, and post-loss comment when he understandably tried to spin the debacle with his comparison to Jesse Jackson's win in SC, is termed racist. One-sided racial characterization is the third rail in liberal politics. Touch it, and the white democratic politician may die. Clarence Thomas got the white democratic establishment to wilt away once he raised the notion of lynching. However, this fear stemming from political-correctness will lead to a flawed candidate who is not properly vetted or inured during the primary; who will disintegrate once he is the target of the real racial attacks by the republican machine. HRC has already got a full plate of sexist attacks from the MSM and from republicans, and she has met them head on. The MSM and the liberal blogosphere, on the other hand, has spun a protective bubble around Obama and, I fear, he will wilt once the battle is joined by the republicans.