Letters to the Editor
-
Sure, Joan, that makes sense...
"But could media adoration wind up hurting Obama?"
Absolutely, if by "hurting Obama" you mean helping him win the Democrat nomination and thereby eventually "saddling" him with the U.S. Presidency.
Or, if you switch the words "Obama" with "Hillary", giving us "hurting Hillary" instead.....
You really have to love Joan Walsh. Sometimes, I don't think she realizes how transparently plastic this woman is. I'm willing to bet her closest friends are named "Barbie" and "Ken".
You go, girl!!!
-
@Tina
"His accomplishments to date are/is a wildly over-rated convention speech that anybody could have made"
False. I could not have made that speech. And judging from your post, perhaps your own style would have differed considerably from Obama's.
I'm not sure why both sides can't admit the strengths of the opposing candidate. Obviously Obama is a great speaker. Obviously Clinton is a great prevaricator.
There, I've restored civility.
-
I feel disenfranchised
So no - this particular person feels like Obama doesn't give a damn about me, except to marginalize me as too old and female and the wrong minority for him. Or maybe that's just his surrogates.
I want him to run against the Republicans - not her. No hope here, no change in politics just the same old scolding and identity politics.
I would like restoration of the constitution - I'm afraid of change without the change agent having understanding of history - Please Obama, talk to me about that, Bush changed a lot of things too and I'm scared of people who don't talk of a real understanding of why other changes failed in the past.
I know that you understand complex analysis, Harvard doesn't really let fools run the Law Review. You're obviously, cynically just not sharing. Please stop talking down to me.
-
Thank you, Joan, for calling out the Obama campaign on their game. At last.
You said:
It crystallized for me another problem with the Obama campaign: Its supporters' reliance on their, and their candidate's, obvious moral and political superiority to win the election.
Bingo! The truth about Obama's campaign has finally come out. And I think you're the first one to categorically state this ruse they've perpetrated since SC. With those two sarcastic comments you got from Obama's supporters, they've finally shown the arrogance, and, yes, entitlement, that they feel their candidate has to the presidency by virtue of his skin colour.
Since his greatness is just so plain for all to see, you need not bother with comparing and analysing the guy's thin resume of accomplishments, and vague plans. His most attractive personality and speechifying and ethnic background are all you need to know to give him your vote. Anyone (preferably with lots of education and money and youth, allege the pundits, no?) can see that!
And it had to come out, sooner or later - the assertion that anyone who does not support him has to be a racist. Well, it sure worked for them in SC...because you know, an overwhelming majority of blacks voting for him there cannot, in God's great universe, be possibly construed as having the least bit to do with his skin colour. No, not at all.
-
Paranoias in the genes...
It's hilarious: if you read through comments, you'll find usually the words "racist" and "sexist" appear in HRC fan posts. Most often it's to accuse Obama supporters of crying about it, or being it.
The fact is the only person in this campaign to actually PLAY the proverbial race card (over and over and over again) is Bill Clinton. And, now we're back to the familiar meme of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy out to get poor, brave Hillary (who cares so much it she sometimes tears up!). Talk about yer fairy tales!
Joan: get off whatever junk the HRC crowd is pumping into you and smell the coffee... you're being played. You're buying into an old, discredited political tactic, always framed as a story. The Clintons are masters of victim politics, and on this one they're playing you. I recognize and accept your assessment of MSNBC's cheerleading as inappropriate. Can you say the same of George Stephanopolous' shameless rationalizations and excuses for Clinton failures and mistakes (or ABC News wont to include superdelegates in every count, without qualification)?
These are the big leagues. This stuff comes in waves, and both sides have their partisan moles in the media. A couple weeks back folks were hammering Obama for responding aggressively to real attacks and outright lies by Clinton, and the media were dancing on HIS grave after New Hampshire. There's a nugget of truth in the anti-Clinton meme her supporters shouldn't discount: her negatives are the highest of any first time candidate.
She is the candidate who will inspire the Republican base, with little hope of crossover because people on the other side of the aisle truly hate her. John Kerry counted on the size of the Democratic base to beat W, and we all actually turned out. And lost because Rove whipped the crazy train into an Anti-Kerry lather. HRC is a much easier target than Kerry because they already detest and fear her. If you think her response to Obama's policy attacks turned people off, wait till she lashes out at the real swiftboaters! Ugly, angry candidates rarely win presidential elections, and as much as Dems may be looking for payback, it's an illusion.
I have no doubt Hillary's a fighter. I respect those who feel that's needed, but respectfully suggest you're wrong: the fight is already over, we're broke. We can't afford to go to war over the scraps if we hope to recover from the disaster that could end in November. Everyone knows the terms of every debate, and the shape of the eventual settlements. We can fight over the last 10% or we can start moving. Hillary's the candidate if you, like the Republicans, think the Good Fight is more important than jobs, security, and your health. She'll give us that in spades. Obamas a better candidate if you want to get down to business, avoid silly filibusters and grandstanding by giving the other side a place at the table.
Never forget why HRC cost us healthcare in the first place: The main criticism was she created a plan behind closed doors, and dropped it "love it or leave it" style on Congress. Who not surprisingly left it. That kind of hardball style was present in Clinton victories, but that was a different era, when there was still something to fight about. We're flat busted, fighting a senseless war while doling out tax cuts, in the middle of a recession. We know where we all stand. There's simply not much to fight over, so lets talk it out, cut the deals and move on.
The original post repeats that over-used Clinton tactic, paranoia. She's infecting her supporters, much as Obama has the MSNBC crowd all stoned on "change". Shame on you Joan, for buying into and uncritically spreading a silly campaign talking point.