Letters to the Editor
-
Is this the thread
Where we argue if estrogen trumps melanin?
-
I'm Trying To Decide
If davedavis is terrified of women or if he has a crush on Hillary.
-
2-way street
I love how so many posters for Hillary will Obama-bash for his supporters extoling his moral superiority while, in the same breath, attempt to marginalize him for his "thin-resume", meaning his lack of experienced compared to Hillary Clinton.
It is hilarious how they don't seem to get it. So let me spell it out for you guys so you dont' keep making fools of yourselves:
THE REASON OBAMA CAN EXTOLE MORAL VIRTUE OVER HILLARY IS BECAUSE HE HASN'T BEEN PLAYING THE GAME AS LONG AS HILLARY.
It's gut-bustingly funny watching Hillary supporters dance around Hillary's moral dilemas and attempting to dismiss any critizism of them by labeling her critics as "Mean-spirited attacks" or "Clinton Bashing".
Note that the Obama camp has yet to employ such a "strategy". Until he does, he has my support.
-
Pundits get it wrong again
During Tuesday afternoon and evening I received about 10 news alterts from CNN, New York Times, Miami Herald all making predictions or calling the winners way before the voting tallies were in. Consequently in several cases they were wrong and had to correct themselves. They're were all over the map. They are using old punitry that just doesn't work in this election. And yet CNN boasts that they have the best political team following the presidential campaigns. I don't think so. It's rather pathetic.
-
mkburr and Obama supporter's blackmail
Mkburr,
I appreciate your thoughtful, passionate explanation of Obama supporters near-constant threat to not vote for anyone not Obama. But I'll tell you my problem with it. It's the focus on two words: "present" and "I".
What I find so incredibly frustrating about that threat is the disregard for its consequences. I can appreciate one's desire to enjoy how a candidate "impacts our lives in the present". But a Presidential election isn't just about the present, or how you feel "in the present". As Obama's slogans keep reminding us, it's also, in fact, mainly, about the future. And not just a four-year future, as Bush's tenure shows us when we'll be paying for Iraq and his debt and his Supreme Court nominees for, in some cases, decades. By all means, focus on how you feel in the present in the primaries, but when it comes to the general, that's just far too narrow a focus.
The second problem is with all the focus on "I" and "me" and "our". A somewhat odd focus for a group whose leader espouses (sincerely I believe) "unity". It's great that Obama inspires such personal feelings, and that people act on those feelings in the primary by voting for him. But wouldn't it be more to Obama's spirit to, if the general comes and he's not the nominee, to focus a little bit on people not "me"? If the sole reason you vote for Obama is because he makes you feel "good", that seems a weak argument to me. If he makes you feel good and you like what he wants to do with the position (health care, out of Iraq, etc.), then that makes much more sense. But of course, if it's because of what he wants to do rather than the more amorphous feelings he inspires, then if he isn't the nominee, but you think what he "wants to do" is good for the country, than if one truly cares about the country rather than one's personal feelings, wouldn't it make sense to vote for someone who wants to do pretty much the same things as opposed to someone who would actively fight to prevent them?
I think that focus on inspiration (and its too often attendant implications or outright statements of self-righteousness or superiority) rather than on the real-world implications of such decisions, is what rankles many HRC supporters (by the way, I have financially supported both of them, so I'm by no means an Obama detractor).
-
Ha, ha, this absurd post gave me my biggest laugh this morning:
Dataguyx said:
Media adoration may hurt Obama, but
the adoration of Hillary's fans is definently damaging her. I have never in my life seen such a bunch of vindictive, self-righteous, single-minded, seek-and-destroy partisans in my life. Whenever any threat arises against Her Holiness, the Hillary nuns ATTACK! And the attack is merciless, and quite often just obviously unfair and hypocritical. They have pilloried Barack for a few votes in the Illinois Senate, while ignoring Hillary's votes to authorize the Iraq war. They have pilloried Barack for his contributors, while ignoring the Hillary contributors like Chu now in jail. The Hillary supporters have castigated Barack for his supporters' dubious connections, while ignoring Mark Penn's shilling for Blackwater.
I want to be able to vote for the Democratic nominee. The Hillary forces need to train their guns on Republicans, not fellow Democrats. They need to fight fairly, not badly.
Many many persons have already been driven from considering Hillary by the deranged fans she has attracted.
-- dataguyx
You know, it happens all the time, and I forgive you for it, but methinks your fingers slipped on the keyboard and kept hitting the wrong keys in certain words and came up with all those typos. I think you mostly meant to type 'Barack' instead of 'Hillary' in there, and it's 'His Holiness', Barack Obama, you really intended to type, no? Because the revised edition of your comment hews much, much closer to reality.
And I guess you looked in the mirror first before composing this screed?
-
W.E.S.
Because I don't support Hillary, I must hate women?
As usual another Hillarist playing the gender card. Man that line's getting old. Next up: WES infers I'm a crazy black guy all hot for Obama...
sheesh...
Wes: Do you have any actual points to make, or just weak ad hominum remarks.
-
Obama Worship
Joan: you will get the usual hits from Obama's supporters. That is a given. As for Hardball: Matthews, Mitchell, Fineman, Robinson and Barnicle are of a piece. Suppose everytime Matthews introduces Barnicle and says: We turn now to Mike Barnicle for his take. Just remember that he was caught plaigirising a while back so factor that in your judgement. That is what they do to the Clintons. Mike great quality is that is consistently wrong. But, hey, being right occasionally does not qualify. Agreeing with Matthews and playing along get you face time.
The Huffington Post reminds me that during Bill Clinton's years in offfice Arianna led the charge against the White House. She was a Republican then and a spear carrier for the Starr mob. HuffPost is filled with Hillary haters. Now Kos is another great place. Very good analyses, good pieces on politics. But when you go to the comments section and see the voting results you are reminded of Pravda or Michelle Malkin. They always 90% in favour of something. I am beginning to think their polls are tongue in cheek.