Letters to the Editor
-
Already a Traitor
Oprah became a traitor back in 2000 — when she invited George W. Bush onto her show and gave him a platform to pretend that he was an acceptable choice for President. I'll never forgive her for her contribution to the subsequent destruction of the Constitution.
-
Stop bitching about trust funds Michelle
Obama also noted that like many Americans, she and her husband are "three years outside of paying down our educational debt. We got those good degrees, and we didn't have trust funds." She quickly insisted there's "nothing wrong with trust funds" and joked that she wished her husband had one. "I was a little hopeful when I heard about this relationship with Dick Cheney. I thought, maybe this is it!"
This is just so effing hysterical coming from someone whose combined family income was over 900k in 2006, and who lives in a 1.65 million dollar mansion.
I guess hanging out with Oprah makes everyone feel poor.
-
Obama is not inclusive
On January 23, 2008, on Countdown, Keith Olbermann showed a clip of an interview that Barack Obama had with the Christian Broadcasting Network:
OBAMA: I think there is no doubt that [Hillary Clinton] has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates, that's just a fact. And there are some who will not vote for her. I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?
That comment is one (of the many) reason(s) I will not actively support Obama.
Senator Clinton is more inclusive and forward thinking -- and yes, less divisive. Compare Hillary's comment to Obama's on the same topic:
CLINTON: As soon as we have a nominee, we will be strongly united because the most important thing is to put a Democrat in the White House starting in January 2009.
Obama has, on many occasions, thrown out his "threat" to his audience, that Hillary's supporters will come to him, but his supporters will not go to her. As though to say, "don't waver" on me or you get what's coming to you -- a Republican in the White House.
My belief is that Obama is too cocky for his own good. If he wants to make the argument that he is an agent for change, he should also encourage his supporters to line up behind the eventual Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.
But, he won't because he's cocksure he's got the nomination in the bag. He could be counting his chickens before...
-
Ancient Assyrian, your jibe at Garry Owen was in very bad taste
Perhaps you don't know what you're talking about as you get swept away by your own prejudices. Do you know someone with bi-polar disorder and, if you do, do you like to jeer at that person? How do you know that you will never suffer from mental illness. All your flapdoodle about the greatness of your cause, Obama, was exposed for the high-and-mighty posing yhat it is with your taunt about Lithium. I know. You are so principled that you have to worship at the shrine of Blessed Barack but that doesn't stop you from kicking and biting anyone who gets in the way or who is skeptical about The One, as Oprah has called him. I suppose you've heard of the wolf in sheep's clothing so let's hope that you nver have to play the part of Little Red Riding-Hood.
-
Almost Ancient Assyrian
I think you're hooked on your own idealism Ancient Assyrian, but it's very becoming. Did you see the anonymous post at 1:15 about Obama's credentials as a Democratic unifyer when compared to Clinton?
He's not all sunshine. The perception is based on how few stands he's taken he can't spin. It goes right back to the beginning when he claimed he'd "never" have voted for the war. It established his credential as the anti-war candidate, but I find it thin ice given the response he's received.
The time to get on the solidarity bandwagon is now--not after the primary and not in the waning period before the general election. The decisions are being made now.
If the idealists like yourself go for the "higher ground" (like they did in '04 and '00)and Obama doesn't tell them in sharp clear terms to compromise with Hillary we'll have another Republican president. That was Dean's intolerable mistake and it's time for Dems to learn from it rather than pretend it didn't happen.
Ben Sen signing as anonymous
-
How would all those Hillary supporting women feel. . .
If white guys walked around saying, "I'm voting for the white guy because he's a white guy."
One would expect they'd be more than a little outraged. And rightly so.
So why is it okay to advocate that women vote for a women candidate because she's a woman. Especially a woman who voted for a war that the majority of democratic women were against? And I can only imagine the outcry if anyone dared call someone a "race traitor" for voting for Obama. Gracious me.
-
Anonymous @ l2:53 p.m
Ray Nagin and Barack Obama "two good-looking black men" are delightful, apparently, because they are not two ugly-looking black men. Apart from the hue of his complexion. Barack Obama bears an amazing resemblance to his grandfather, Stanley Dunham, whose family pictures are easily accessible on the Net. In Kansas, Obama emphasised his white heritage, as it was his mother's parents who raised him and supported him financially. If Barack Obama is ever elected President, the arguments about him being black, bi-racial, multiracial or deracinated are likely to continue. The Jim Crow laws are gone and who would ever have imagined that it is African-Americans who would strive to keep those ideas alive in the 21st century. For what purpose?
-
Assyrian said: "I believe in telling the truth, for truth's sake. And in giving credit where credit is due."
Who cares what you believe?
-
Credit me with putting Ancient A on the right track here
At least he has stopped his vicious and disturbing personal rants against JW here. I guess I'll give myself credit, even if he is too small to do so.
Stay with it, Assy, get yourself a buddy at Trolls Anonymous and don't miss any more of the 12 Step meetings.
-
"the highest negatives" is this divisive?
Sometimes I wonder who people here hang out with. I'm an independent/Democrat who voted for the Clintons twice for the white house. But I know a lot of independents and Republican people. (And not all of them are evil, by the way, and many of them now dislike Bush as much or more than I do).
When Obama states that Clintons negatives are high--you are assuming that he's stating this to be unchivalrous? I have relatives who are pretty good people--and yet, they will vote for anyone opposing Clinton.
You can hate it. You can fight it. I know people whose parents are this way too. Whether it is resentment of Bill's treatment of Monica (he left her out to dry in a very unchivalrous way, if anyone recalls by making her the liar until her infamous blue dress got hauled out and people kept loudly pointing out how fat and unattractive she was)...his perpetual attraction to scandals (travelgate, whitewater, lewinsky gate, Indonesian money scandal, Chinese spy scandal...) The people I'm talking about have reasons (whether you or I agree with them or not) for not trusting a Clinton in the white house ever again. (Except possibly Chelsea many many years from now). This has come out on survey after survey, and yet the bearer of bad news gets blamed. Saying that Hillary has high negatives is tantamount to sexism for some people...when unfortunately it is merely stating every pollster's truism.
If you believe in Clinton and her politics enough that you want to help her mount this personal battle to win 51% of the vote then that's what you can do. But it can't be divisive to state something that we have evidence of--that it is true. Obama doesn't have people who will cast a vote specifically against him (unless they are Democrats who are fervidly for Clinton...) But Clinton has independent voters and Republicans who say that they will vote against her no matter who the other ticket is. They will make an effort to do so. Further, Democrats need to be honest enough to admit that this has more to do with her husband and their feeling for him and their time in office together, unfortunately, than for her feminism or her radical stance on the issues.
What will be divisive in the long run is if Clintons supporters choose her for not very good reasons (like that she is a woman or its "her turn" or something lame), and then they can't stand up to defend her in the general election. It will be divisive if the Democrats lose the white house because they don't choose a candidate with the enthusiastic groundswell support this person needs in order to win--and to lead.
That would be divisive.