Letters to the Editor
-
The Ruckus is over for now
It was the pundits and Hillary camaping that started this.
Today Obama once again took the high road and was the first to try to quell the controversy that flared between the Obama and Hillary campaign. He sad he did not want the campaign "to denigrate into such a tit-for-tat, back and forth that we loose sight of why all of us are doing this"...."we share the same goals,; we're all Democrats; we all believe in civil rights; we all believe in equal rights". Then an hour later, Clinton campaign then issued a similar statement.
Meanwhile the Clinton campaign is suing in NV in an attempt to keep caucuses off the Las Vegas strip. The Democrats had agreed months ago to allow caucuses along the strip because of the hours of the casino workers, so the workers could have an opportunity to participate in the vote. Now that the union that represents all these people has endorsed Obama, the Hilary campaign wants to change the rules. Typical HRC campaign strategy.
-
It seems like the author has already drawn a conclusion.
The author is a hypocrite in this race/gender war. Why does he spend about two thirds of his article denouncing gender as an issue and bashing Gloria? He draws the worst conclusions from her writing, and I doubt the author knows anything about being female in America. Smells like an operative.
-
Constituency determined Hillary's war vote!
This article outlines the impact of the gender/race aspects of this campaign rather well. However, to speculate that Hillary voted for the war with Iraq because she had to appear tough is probably not the real reason she voted to invade. She was more or less forced to vote for it considering her constituency. In fact, had she not voted for it, the Jewish community would have had a fit...she might not have survived!
-
@ceytron
"Words can have mulitple meanings to multiple groups, Karl Rove has used that tactic brilliantly over the past 8 years.
For example:
Clinton: "Give me a break! This WHOLE thing is a fairy tale!" On the surface you could argue he is only talking about Obama's war position. But then, why didn't he say" "This whole ARGUMENT is a fairy tale"? or "This whole POSITION is a fairy tale?"."
Maybe those would have been better sentence constructions, but he was not giving a formal speech that was vetted by his speech writers. Nevertheless, given the half dozen statements he said before the one you quote, it is clear that this statement is the conclusion to the line of argument he was building. So the question is, just who most resembles Karl Rove here? Not Bill, but the people interpreting his statements. They know 100% what Bill meant in his context, but chose to distort his meaning in Rovian fashion. This is gotcha politics.
"Why not? Because he was trying to disparage Obama! Obama, the black man who trancends race and politics, the black man who wins over white voters. A fairy tale that Black Americans should not rest their hopes on."
Yeah yeah. So I have been told. You forgot to add that you are Barack Obama and you approve this ad.
"And as for Hillary Clinton's MLK/Johnson comment, I would only ask this: WHY, WHY did she feel the need to bring up that point in the first place? What possible relevance does the roles of MLK, Johnson, and the civil rights movement have on this race? "
A lot. The reason is very important to the case she made. Everbody knows that Obama and Hillary basically agree on all the issues. Their voting records are very close to the same. They are both Democrats. But Hillary's point is that just having the right position is not enough. You have to be able to get things passed in a hostile legistlative environment that will include Orin Hatch, James Inhofe, and Mitch McConnell. What Hillary means is that with her experience, she will be able to get stuff passed better than Obama. That is why she makes the case. Unfortunately, it is to people who don't understand history very well.
You may disagree that Hillary can get things passed better than Obama. If you think Obama will do better, that is your right. You have the right to vote for whoever you want.
--
-
Race Politics
After George W. Bush, the qualification bar for president is so low that we are considering whether or not a guy with two years experience in the Senate could do the job. The big question is not if we would elect a black man. The question is do we want someone with so little experience trying to do the job of President?
Before the Iowa caucus, Obama was interviewed by the media and asked why, as a Junior Senator, he chooses to run now for President. Why not wait and gain more experience first? Obama answered that he and his wife Michelle had discussed it and feel that they are "closest to the people now, at this time in their lives." He said "In eight years, we will be in another stratosphere and not be in touch with the people." Obama really said this, to my shock and chagrin. No one in the media picked it up and it appears that no one even noticed.
His comments signal to me that he is arrogant, a political "climber," desires early success as a politician and is unconcerned about his qualifications for the job of President. Has Obama asked himself what does it take to be an effective President or has he just asked himself how would it feel to be President?
I think the blow-up about Obama's race is an effort on Obama's part to obfuscate the reality that he is not yet qualified to be President. In addition, I am offended that there is a suggestion (by the media, especially CNN and the New York Times)that if I vote for Edwards , I am doing this because I am a racist. Come on fellow Americans, let's find the most qualified candidate and vote for him or her.
-
Race war? Gender War?
Are you folks on happy pills?
It isn't about Race or Gender.
It's about war.
You want WAR?
Vote for Clinton or Obama.
You don't want WAR?
Vote for Kucinich.
Just how stupid are AMERICANS anyway?
Yeah, that STUPID.