Letters to the Editor
-
There Is No Depth To Obama
None. It's all flowery oratory prepared for naive ears....... The only substance is "I was against the War except all the times I voted to fund it."
-
HMM ... over at CNN
I felt a definite Hillary preference. Even among the Republican commentator, who said he would be thrilled to have Clinton as the nominee so that the repub candidate would win.
I think people can sway this "bias" anyway they want for their candidate, however, I do think that a lot of the anti-Hillary sentiment (by liberal media, not FOX or other weirdos) has been at least partially her fault due to her tendency to go on the negative & her tactics in places like SC.
-
who is "the man" behind the curtain?
Obama does really well in caucus states and
not as well in behind the curtain voting states.
Does this mean than dems like to appear to be
out for the liberalist candidate, as they publicly
choose a corner in a room, but vote their real
feelings behind a voting booth curtain?
I think it is sad but true. He is too inexperienced
and lacks actual plans for me. I do love his enthusiasm,
but the ceerleader's role is the vice pres.
I would love to see him unite the party by offering
to serve as vp nom rather than being asked, it is the
only way it will work. In a gender and color blind
selection process, between theh two who are running
equally well, you put the one with more experience
on the top of the ticket and the popular one to fill
the ticket out, just like the republicans will do with
McCain and Huckabee.
I don't want the dems to blow this softball decision
out of some misguided allegience to diversity. A woman
is diverse enough, right? Or hasn't anyone noticed that a
man of another color is, in the end, just another man.
I like them both, but Clinton is ready to do the job.
So the dilemma that I offered above is not mine, but the
cynic in me says that it is the best explanation of
the facts.
Perhaps some statistics would clear it up.
-
You're the pundit you decry
I was appalled at Joan's bizarre commentary about Barack's performance on Super Tuesday on Hardball last night - she seemed more agitated than usual, throwing pure nonsense out there, that fell flat.
Now - here is Joan, frustrated at the fair treatment Barack is getting from the media - and why wouldn't he? He respects the media, the media respect him back. Your candidate has a sordid history with the media, and it shows. That's all. The past is not so easily discounted, or your candidate would have secured the nomination by now, as she had anticipated.
As for Joan's wishful thinking - putting it as a question, a true and tried FoxNews method - that "[the media adoration, sic] will backfire", as long as the fact are reported, and the truth emerges, the Obama Campaign will be fine. Don't you worry your sweet pundit self.
-
The Notorious W.E.S.
blah, blah, blah! If I hear that refrain one more time, or one more person repeat robotically that Hillary is "ready to go on day one" I think I might vomit.
Just because the guy can give a speech does not mean he has nothing underneath. Why don't you try reading his books or many position background papers on his website instead of asking to be spoonfed every detail. Not that I've heard many details from HRC (except the wrong ones - wrong on Iraq, wrong on torture, wrong on cuba, wrong on healthcare mandates ... and Obama is right on these issues) ... she's mainly too busy attacking Obama. Try educating yourself rather than spouting inane factless statements.
-
liberalist candidate
lmao ... says it all about HRC supporters.
-
msnbc
great piece by joan here. especially the moral superiority of the obama supporters. his loudest supporters are just the type of supporters that turn off mid america. they will turn off mid america in the general election so bad that obama will be lucky to get more then 45%. i was an obama supporter early. i changed to hillary because of the terribly one sided coverage of the media. msnbc is the worst of the bunch. i was a long time msnbc viewer, but their one sided coverage of this race is pathetic. really, heads should roll. lets start with olberman or however you spell the idiots name
-
SocsAndTwigs
The Obama campaign is like your average church. A Guy stands up at the pulpit, massages the ears, and they pass the bucket around.
-
The Notorious W.E.S.
Well, I don't go to church, but sounds like you know a lot about it ... esp because you keep quoting those HRC campaign mantras.
-
My Other Analogy
For Obama would be Mister Rogers.
-
Wait a minute
There is no doubt the press have become a corporatized mess. Their failings during the Bush debacle have given us a fear society, a useless war, and systematic gutting of the fundamental institutions of our country.
That said, it seems to me that the anger directed at the press' attitude to Obama versus Clintonis is not where the focus should be.
If anything, I feel that the coverage of Hillary has been to light (or lite). Yes, they play highschool personality games (as well described by Glenn Greenwald) and Hillary loses on that count. Not the most useful way to impact public opinion -though in this case picking up on something real in my opinion.
The real issue is all that we still don't know about the Clinton's connections to big money and influence peddling. Although Hillary says she has been highly vetted by the Republican dirt machine I would disagree. I am well informed and read blogs too much but I still don't know what the basis for Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich was. It seemd dirty at the time but I figured it was about the right wing attack machine. On reflection, I want to know more. For better or worse I watched a You Tube video yesterday linked to by a liberal blogger. It detailed the Clinton's dealings with Peter Paul and Stan Lee. The video makes claims that suggest the Clinton's are quite money hungry and happy to use and misuse their influence. Don't know how accurate it is (it's a You Tube video after all) but I'd like to know more.
There are a number of Clinton era scandals that have not been fully resolved in my mind, and surely not the public's, that need to be explained and vetted lest they resurface during the general election when it's too late.
I'd like to know more about Rezko. Obama seems much less beholden to wealthy individuals or institutions but if I'm mistaken I want to know.
It is clear that all of the destruction from the Bush Administration relates to their fundamental principle of transferring wealth to well connected cronies. From national security manipulation, to the war in Iraq, to No Child Left Behind, to their particular approach to medicare prescription benefits... it's about funneling money to their bud's.
I want to know which of the candidates will represent my interests not their friends' and contributors'.
I have come to the strong belief that this is the only important issue in this campaign. I think many people agree.
I support Obama because I perceive him to have greater integrity than the Clintons (I was a huge supporter and defender of theirs prior to this campaign). If I'm wrong you need to inform me on that not try to get me to feel sorry because (the admittedly lame) press doesn't treat Hillary Clinton nice.
In the meantime, if the press is only interested in telling their stories their way, at least it's a little reassuring to me that we are finally working towards similar goals. For better or worse their support of Bush allowed him to accomplish the most outrageous things. Imagine if they finally cut a Democrat that kind of slack.