Letters to the Editor
-
it's about betrayal
When the ACLU went out of it's way to defend the neo-nazi party's right to march (demonstrate) thru the streets of Chicago and Skokie, a lot of liberals were appalled at the ACLU and felt undermined and betrayed. They were, it seemed to me, defending the neo-nazis right to terrorize the holocaust survivors in their own homes.
It may have been quoted out of context from the conference call. Or not.
-
Smearing Clinton for the comments of some random idiot?
This is sucky, Salon.
-
Um before you Clintonistas start writing
Yes, this was sneak y and kind of unpleasant by Obama. No doubt about it. Relying on fear to win elections is for the GOP not the democrats. (Hmm perhaps that's why we keep losing elections, but that is another discussion)
What I'd like to point out, before th Clinton supporters go nuts on this, is that isn't this exactly the kind of thing that the Clinton people keep saying the GOP will do in the general. And haven't they been complaining that Obama should just get tough and handle it?
So which is it? Is there no place for this kind of hardball in democratic politics and Obama should apologize? Or is this the kind of stuff that the GOP will through at the democratic nominee will have to face and if she can't handle it now then how is she supposed to handle it in the general?
Just asking. You know, before everyone starts their "outraged" letters to Salon.
-
The ACLU held true to the Constitution
They didn't defend the 'rights of Nazis" so much as they defended everyone's rights to speech and peacable assembly. I am surprised that otherwise clear-thinking liberals have trouble understanding that if we don't defend everyone's rights we defend no one's rights.
Sorry about the peripheral comment, but the issue keeps coming up in this thread.
-
mjkoch
And you have your head in the sand and have bought the Obamazombie 'hate Hillary' trance tripe. Character assassination? Nasty and mean-spirited. Sorry, but it's been Obama doing the character assassination of Clinton. It's Obama being divisive, nasty and mean-sprited here.
And this flyer proves as much. Oddly enough, a lot of progressives being reminded by this of the attacks that took the original proposal down may prove be a big negative for Obama.
-
Good point, soopergrover... re: Democract-on-Democrat smackdown politics
I agree with you. I'm not loving the Obama campaign's tactics on that ad. But both candidates' campaigns have done, said, agreed to, and disseminated via surrogates, things I think are ethically questionable.
But it appears to be the way the game is played in 2008. And yes, if the Republicans/Republican nominee are going to charge hard, with everything they've got, all the Rovian dirty tricks in the playbook, and launching every Swiftboat smear tactic available, then BOTH candidates have to be prepared for battle.
Hillary's campaign can't smear/attack Obama, and then claim that it's ok, because it's nothing compared to what he would face against the Republicans, and act like they're somehow doing him some sort of service -- while at the same time, shrieking about how unfair and horrible it is when his campaign responds in kind.
Either Democract-on-Democrat smackdown politics toughens up both candidates and readies them for the Republican attack or it doesn't.
But it's not selective, and not just something Hillary's campaign can do to toughen up Barack...
-
Playskool junior psychiatrist kit Ancient one?
Proctology is my specialty, and you appear to have a hemorrhoid surrounding your cerebral cortex. In other words, you have your head up your ass.
I like coming to Joan's defense. It's the way I get my jollies and it pisses you off to no end.
JW has NOT endorsed any particular candidate for president yet. All this paranoia of yours makes you look foolish. You have still yet to cite the "smoking gun" quote of Joan saying, "I support Hillary Clinton for President."
Show me. Or blow me. I don't care.
-
Clinton's area of expertise
Yesterday I was talking with a friend about how if I were in charge of Hillary Clinton's campaign (ha, ha) I would have made it all about health care. In my opinion, she has been stressing her national security cred which, in light of her support of the worst imperialistic tendencies of Bush and the Republican Congress, is not her strong suit. Bill Clinton had some weaknesses too (ignoring the crisis in Rwanda, and bombing Kosovo, helping to coin the term "wag the dog," and not expressing sufficient concern about civilian casualties in any of the above scenerios) so I think national security may convince conservatives to vote for the Clintons (if they will ever vote for the Clintons), but it will not convince many progressives.
On the other hand, health care should be her strong suit. It nearly is--I've downloaded and read Obama and Clintons' plans. Clinton's sounds more detailed and even knowledgeable--but I don't quite understand the mandate issue either. If Americans don't choose any of the three options Clinton gives them, what happens? Is there a financial punishment?
When I lived in Massachusettes two years ago under Romney there was mandated insurance that was not popular with those of us barely able to afford our heating bills in the winter. It was expensive, and if you got sick, it didn't really do that much. You could still get stuck with a terrible bill--or so rumor had it--I was never seriously ill myself although I did get a horrible $3500 dental bill despite carrying employer-based dental insurance.
So for those who have read and understood, what are the differences between Obama and Clinton's plans? Juliebird you had a very good point about if Obama's plan calls for paying back premiums--how is that different that Clinton's "penalties"?
I'm afraid that both plans are too vague for me to completely "get." Anyone else?
-
ACLU, Good... Obama Bad (as he wants to be)
Of topic and on the ACLU: I don't see how ANYONE could portray the ACLU of being out of whack in their defense of the Nazi march in Skokie. They, are, after all, the "American Civil Liberties Union" and their mission is to defend these liberties even if the message is lantantlt hateful. Having lived in Philadelphia 'Gayborhood' for several years, I would be as upset if the anti-gay bigots were disallowed from making their noxious presence felt at the Bi-annual (no pun) street festivals, as I would be if the festivals were driven from the streets altogether. This is not screaming fire in a movie theater, nor screaming bloody murder outside someone's bedroom window at 3am, but rather a publically announced and sanctioned forum of expression.
Anyone who questions this is catagorically not a liberal, and is, yes, I dare say, fascistically inclined.
Omama: As I think has been obviously clear, Obama is a competant politician in the least flattering of senses, and quite enough for the old cynical Clintons. It, was, in fact, the Obama campaign before SC who introduced race into the public discussion, not the Clintons, while the Clinton's were then (ahem) tarred by the suggestion it was them. Brilliant, from a purely stategic point of view. This commercial is despicable in form, but fair in function, as it makes a clear point. Alas, i worry that Obama could be nailed along similar lines in a general election. If an identical commercial were used by the Republicans against Obama's still essentially universal system, the commercial would be raised in the media as an hilarious turnabout as well point to the 'slippery slope' threat the conserviatives will no doubt attempt to raise in objection to gov't control.