Letters to the Editor
-
Obama supporters
Earlier in the race I hadn't been aware that there were a sizable number of Obama supporters who were saying they wouldn't support Clinton if she won the nomination. I'm an Obama supporter myself, but that did bother me. I believe a democrat should support whoever is the nominee, and I certainly will. However, the Obama supporters who won't vote for Clinton basically aren't democrats: they're independents and moderate republicans. The fact that he can appeal to them, when Clinton doesn't, despite the fact that voting-wise he is more liberal than she is, is a stong mark in his favor when it comes to the national election. Repubicans have been scooping up those voters nationally, and it's time that changed. No matter how many times Clinton tacks to the center, the voters there still don't like her. The fact that the centrists/independents like Obama despite his consistent liberalism is amazing, and makes him the stronger candidate for November. He'll move the center leftward, after decades of the left moving to the right.
-
So strange, and so sad.
It seems the Clintons' preferred method of political cover -- acting unfairly aggrieved -- has been adopted by all too many of their supporters.
Once it was just the vast right-wing conspiracy. Now the vast media conspiracy and vast Obama conspiracy also threaten. Hard to see how Senator Clinton will be able to govern successfully with all these dark forces arrayed against her.
Here's a news flash: Obama supporters don't hate women -- many of them are women, particularly when you look at his support among the under-40 crowd.
Nor are they backing Obama for ill-thought-out, "cultish" reasons. (In fact, as every poll suggests, Obama tends to do better among better educated people, who -- one would think -- would be less receptive to that sort of thing.)
I personally began supporting Sen. Obama over a year ago because I thought he had the best record on campaign finance and ethics reform. I also liked the fact that he's able to energize people across the political spectrum and get them excited about the democratic process again. Over the course of the election campaign, it's become clear that he's the more inspiring, the more progressive, the more electable, and -- given some of the campaign tactics we've seen from the Clintons -- the more principled candidate. He also doesn't suffer from the dynasty problem.
Of course, you can disagree with my assessment of Senator Obama. People differ on such things -- that's the American way. But I don't ascribe Clinton's support to an irrational tide of know-nothings lapsing into quasi-religious fervor (even if Clinton-backers' visceral hatred of Obama reminds me of nothing more than how we all used to feel about Ken Starr.) And neither should you think the same of Obama, or his supporters.
In short, just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're inherently deluded or "cultish." Grow up, already.
-
Fox is sometimes right!
As a life-long Democrat, I find myself in the curious position of only watching MSNBC to catch Pat Buchanan as well realizing that FOX News really is more fair and balanced than MSNBC.
Down is up and up is down!
Sigh.>
Thanks, Joe. Last night I was listening to O'Reily and he and Juan Williams were talking about the election. They agreed that the media loves Obama. I about fell off my chair--I agreed with something Bill O had said. That says everything about the sad state of MSNBC.
-
I've stopped watching television, except in snatches
I've completely stopped watching MSNBC, and I watch CNN in snatches (I do not like Carl Bernstein's snarky comments about HRC, with his suggestion that he's some expert on her).
I'm a Clinton supporter for several reasons, not just her Iraq War vote (which I opposed): she has experience in foreign policy, in government, in working in a bipartisan fashion in the Senate, as she's done for New York the last eight years. She knows how to function on a world stage, and guess what - SHE'S CHARMING.
I am NOT voting for her because she's a woman, and the Obama people and the media need to back off with their rabid presumptions.
-
Carol H is right
I can't believe that watching MSNBC, which in the past has definately been my and my friends "go to" network, is pushing people to watch Fox news. This includes me. It probably won't help the situation but seems as if it would be a good idea to write or e-mail the programming mgr at MSNBC and make sure they know they are losing audience because they have went too far out into the weeds.
I just watched Brokaw on The John Stewart show and he said he basically has to act as the hall monitor to keep things from going totally of track on election night.
-
OBAMA PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SUPPRESS THE VOTE
Obama acolytes are also trying to suppress the vote by accusing people who support Hillary Clinton as being either racist or another woman voting for a woman (which I find offensive)
It may succeed -- I don't know. Then again it may cause a backlash as Joan Walsh suggests. I hope it causes the backlash.
And because Obama gave a speech in 2002 against the Iraq War while he was a state senator in Illinois does not make him an expert on foreign policy able to fend off the Republican attack machine who will kneecap him on his lack of experience.
The soccer moms (and women/asians/hispanics) who voted for George Bush in 2004, for security reasons, may not vote for McCain but I can't see them rushing out to vote for Obama.
-
@joeCHI
Watching MSNBC for Pat Buchanan is scarey isn't it. I am doing the same thing. This is how bad ir is: I actually bought Buchanan's book (How the Right Went Wrong or something like that). Granted I picked it up out of the bargain bin at the $$ store but still, before this media cluster f*** I would have soon expected lightning to strike me as to even listen to anything Buchanan had to say.
Now he is the only voice of reason at MSNBC along with Abrams from time to time. Now I have to figure out how to add Fox News back into my TV remote.
-
"good night"?
But if you look at the way the race had tightened over the last two weeks -- the surge of momentum Obama got after winning South Carolina, the endorsements of Caroline, Ted and later Ethel Kennedy, SEIU and MoveOn.org, the predictions that he'd take away Massachusetts and he might even win California -- then it looks like a pretty good night for Hillary Clinton.
So averting a disaster is all it takes to have a "pretty good night" for Clinton?
I mean, yes, she *did* avert that disaster. But that's about it. Same thing happened in New Hampshire. She managed to win a state she was fully expected to win (though by a much smaller-than-expected margin). Was that a "pretty good night"?
I guess it was for Clinton supporters like Ms. Walsh. To an outside perspective, it seemed like merely surviving.