Letters to the Editor
-
It's Deep, but it Ain't Truth
Hillary organized and led a campaign that has blown the same 20 point lead you cite Mondale (and that sweetie pie Geraldine the bigot-crone) for losing. As far as the faces of the candidates, the most consistent was Edwards, but he didn't have the novelty factor, so the press froze him out. He would have had the best of both remaining candidates, but that's water over the levee. If Obama has two faces (one for each race, or what?), Hillary has too many to count: stern Mommy Hillary, scolding schoolboy Obama; weepy Hillary, her heart full of love for her fellow Americans (and a growing fear of losing); wonk Hillary, spouting meaningless stats and talking points; sarcastic Hillary, mocking hope and vision and words. The republikans cross over to vote for her in droves when they have the chance 'cause she's the target they've been practicing on. No one knows exactly what to think about the Obama phenomenon. No one expected it, certainly not Rodham. She has consistently the highest negatives by far of any candidate in the race. Karl the Rover is licking his plump chops at the chance to gut another clinton and send her to the taxidermist. Sure, Obama is going to see even more lies and fearmongering ads than Hillary's thrown at him, but McLame ain't exactly free of baggage. The war is worsening, the economy is in a death spiral, and all Honest Johnny can do is ape Bush, only with his 40 year old POW story, and his trophy former mistress, now current wife, to back him. I personally think either Clinton or Obama can beat him; we differ on who has the better shot of the two. the voters and the delegates to date corroborate my version.