Letters to the Editor
-
@RealityCounts and @ProudTexasGirl
RealityCounts: "Editorial: an article in a newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor."
Umm, thanks for the definition? It seems to apply to Joan Walsh's piece. I guess if you want to get technical, Walsh's piece is a "column," but it's editorial in nature. Not sure why it has to be limited to a "newspaper or magazine," but Salon can arguably be called a magazine.
RealityCounts: "It is dishonest to present opinion as if it were hard news. It is not dishonest to present opinion as opinion."
This doesn't follow from the definition you provided, and it seems you are just creating a dichotomy for the sake of not addressing my point. I didn't say anything about it being dishonest to present opinion as opinion. I said it is dishonest to present your opinion as a balanced analysis and not to disclose the biases and interests that might influence your analysis. Yes, this really is a Journalism 101 principle.
ProudTexasGirl: "What would Jesus do?"
It's distasteful of you to use your Christian faith as the springboard for an ugly partisan diatribe. I am sure Jesus would not do that...
ProudTexasGirl: "He would pray for Rev. Wright, Mr. Obama, and Louis Farrakhan..."
I have to conclude that you are a piss-poor example of a Christian if you think it is ever acceptable to put words in Jesus's mouth to serve your negative political agenda.
It is also extremely dishonest of you to attempt to lump Obama in with Louis Farrakhan after he has quite publically distanced himself from the man and his views.
-
a note about RealityCounts
I am one of those "older" women who support Hillary and I will tell you right now that should Obama win the nomination I will be voting for McCain.
- RC, from a previous thread
Pathetic
-
@ xh
Well done. You might add that if we're going to invoke "Bush-like loyalty," an apt comparison would seem to be Carville's denunciation of Richardson as a "Judas" for his craven betrayal of the Clintons.
Seriously, that's some scary stuff and I think it's fair to say it's reflective of the ethos of the Clinton team. You might argue that that's all right, or even desirable, but I think a neutral observer would see a clear parallel between such an ethos and that of the Bush administration.
-
He's not the kind of leader to?....
Obama, a multi-racial figure, was hoosegowed into the political low rent area of race with an incessant if muted drumbeat about "fairy tales," drug addiction and selling, pictures of Somali tribal gear and sly evocations of Jesse Jackson to make him the "race candidate." Though the Wright thing was always going to be hanging out there, it acquired traction because of the groundwork laid by the Clinton campaign. Obama, to that point, hadn't discussed race since, given the particular bent of a large part of a certain electorate, it wasn't to his advantage. Hillary made sure that he couldn't avoid it.
Oh, yeah...then, there's this:
"New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said today that the people around Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton practice "gutter" politics and that they feel entitled to the presidency, a day after an informal adviser to her campaign compared Richardson to Judas for endorsing Sen. Barack Obama..."
Richardson Scorns Clinton Aides, Defends Clinton, By Zachary A. Goldfarb http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/03/richardson_scorns_clinton_aide.html?hpid=topnews
What many here have been saying all along, Joan [and Richardson was, in pinning this on Clinton aides, being charitable to his old benefactors]...I doubt if African-Americans would be backing Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes in die-hard, overwhelming numbers, given the track record of those two. And, that should be ditto for many women of a certain demographic who are all wrought up about Hillary Clinton, possibly one of the worst possible female candidates offered up by the Republic. Throw in her exaggeration of her foreign policy experience--even Sinbad had to riff on her about that one--and now we know she was, to say the least, puffing about her Bosnian experience, and her blatant lack of respect for Obama, a fellow democrat, as a viable presidential candidate and, I believe, as a person, and you've got a particularly unworthy Democratic standard bearer.
-
Obama and Race
I like Ms. Walsh's take on things political. I am glad she seems to have a moderate point of view or so it seems to me.
There is little being said about who is really driving the Obama campaign, within the Democrat Party, but it appears to be the Kennedy-Kerry-perhaps Feingold, types whom I call the "Ultra Liberal Wing of the Left Wing Party." I've voted Democrat since 1968, when I got out of the Army after Vietnam combat duty, including serious wounds, malaria, and PTSD. I supported Kerry last time, and voted for Ted Kennedy, McGovern, Mondale, and Clinton.
As a pretty solid Democrat, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were moderates.
Clinton has retained good ratings among a fairly sizable section of the electorate. That is a testament to his moderate stance on many issues; the same was true of Carter. Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, McGovern, Mondale-Fierro, and Dukakis ... all were Ultra Liberals. Every time such candidates run, the Democrat Party loses.
Dems should consider that Obama an Ultra Liberal. As the nominee, he'll sink the Party.
His judgement was flawed on Rev. Wright. Wright was/is a throw back to some pretty nasty racial vibes. "Chickens come home to roost," was used by both Malcolm X and H. Rap Brown. Not a good term for a minister to use, in tandem with suggesting that "GOD DAAAAM" America; that Hillary couldn't represent the African-American community because she's never been called a "n" and that HIV was created to keep the African-American community down.
This is goofy. It may explain why Michelle Obama was only recently "proud" to be of her country ... ostensibly because now there is an African-American candidate. Obama made a SERIOUSLY FLAWED judgement in NOT jettisoning his connection to Wright. Apparently, the Rev. brought it up last year, before Obama announced.
My guess is that both the Rev. and Obama KNEW the content of some of Wright's scorching sermons wouldn't play well in the press. Ms. Walsh is right that Independents and leaning Dem Republicans may distance themselves from Obama. So will plenty of whites in Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, and possibly North Carolina. Among the retired military population of North Carolina, Obama will get hit hard. I doubt many West Virginians will support goofy Senator Rockerfeller in his support for Obama. If Hillary mobilizes the Emily's List groups now swinging into action in Oregon, Montana and South Dakota, she will at least not loose in great numbers to Obama there.
The nosedive in the polls could be made worse for Obama if MORE sermons are waiting to be released ... and how can there not be? We have a dialogue on race, and it's because Obama chose to duck and hope no one would discover his relationship with Wright, and Wright's with Farrakan and who knows who else. He blew it.
This is as seriously a FLAWED a JUDGEMENT as he claims Senator Clinton made on her vote for giving Bush a credit card on Iraq. It's certainly haunting him now that he is in the lead. It should. As a poster on the Washington Post said: if I had a minister as radically anti-black as Wright seems to be anti-white; and I'd stayed with him for 20 years; and, never left a sermon over with the vitriol Wright has spewed in these broadcasts, and said he a source of inspiration for me ... my wife and kids ... and was running for President ... and hadn't severed the relationship because I was concerned about the man's racist statements ... I'd probably be called a racist.
Not everything Wright said was wrong. But to run them all together with anti-September 11th stuff; suggest HIV was an American produced disease to keep African-Americans down; imply Hillary isn't as good as Obama because she's never been called a "n"; and everything she and millions of the rest of us have done to try and make race less of a problem ... well, I AM pissed. I think Obama was stupid to not cut this guy loose. His reluctance to make a total rejection of the man is fine. He's holding onto his African-American roots. But, I sure as hell will try to get as many women I know, and men, to vote against him in these upcoming primaries.
My money goes to Hillary and Emily's List. Rev. Wright totally dissed the progress our country has made ... he castigates Hillary while his own parishoner is running for President, and doing quite well. That's not progress? And, it is clear, most of his congregants were cheering on what he said. Cheering on that message of rejection and hate.
Obama has stepped in a pile of poo.
He's inexperienced, has shown he can have VERY SERIOUSLY flawed judgements with Rev. Wright, the NAFTA and foreign affairs fiascos, and he is Ultra Liberal. If the Dems think such a guy will win in November, in growing turbulent times, they're nuts.
I say: it's up to the remaining states with primaries to stop Obama in his tracks. If he is the nominee, the Dems will lose, just as they always have with the Ultra Liberal Wing of the Democrat Party's candidates. Hillary Clinton is a moderate; she's tenacious, smart, experienced, and a centrist. I hope Edwards endorses her, not Obama.
I hope she stops Obama cold. He does not deserve to be President. I hope others are now seeing it that way. The race card will be blamed. If it is, Obama bears some of the blame, because he held on to a throw back to ugly Black Liberation Movement rhetoric, and characters. We don't need someone so inexperienced, beholden to the Ultra Liberals, and ... men like Rev. Wright.