Letters to the Editor
-
Apologize, Joan.
Salon hasn't covered the Bosina issue. You haven't been "all over it" as you suggested on television, and you've still to write about it yourself. Your site is playing the ostrich game. This is Fox News tactics you're emulating, as others here have noted. Look at the letters page and the number of people disgusted with Hillary for lying. Shouldn't you address that?
-
Undead?
The Hillary Jihadists aka the Democratic Party Suicide Bombers here are more like the zombies in 28 Days Later...they've been fully infected by the Rage Virus. Except the ones on this site are a lot slower (physically and mentally). Shawn the prawn's bilious, hate-filled post could have just as easily been cut and pasted from Freak Republik.
-
Shaun of the dead: Rocks!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365748/
-
Here's what Hillary's better half had to say today:
"You know, I don't give a rip about all this name calling that's going on..."
-
Um, I strongly disagree
With the moneyed interests in the party pretty much openly threatening the Speaker of the House and the CLinton campaign basically openly touting their 'pledged delegates don't have to vote for the people they were elected to vote for' (talk about disenfranchisement!) strategy, I don't see how this is anything but bad for everyone.
-
soopergrover@ One way or another
The Clinton power monopoly is being put to the test. I bet that the DNC is eyeing the Obama fundraising machine (with close to 2M donors) and asking themselves how they can take it over.
-
Why I think it's good...
- Money! Obama is making boatloads of money from this continued campaign which he simply was not going to get if this election had been sewed up two months ago. Much harder to raise money when there isn't an immediate sense of an election going on.
- Obama gets vetted- I've said it before, but in the long run Clinton's little cat in the corner routine is benefitting Obama more than hurting him. Better to have out all these issues now than save them for the general election where McCain could do serious damage on something like the Wright episode. Now what's McCain going to do with Wright? Maybe try with Farrakhan? Experience, maybe? Because Clinton was able to do so much with that narrative. Straight talk? Sure, people are going to buy that after his move to the right. McCain is effectively the tepid sequel to the original (Clinton) that is really quite epic.
(This, of course, comes with the caveat that Obama has to not get caught in any sexcapades with prostitutes or state employees. Beyond that he should be okay.
-
@ mdlewis
Your analysis re: the vetting is plausible.
Thank you for sharing it.
-
@ mdlewis
Ok, let's develop your theory, if we're talking about political calculus.
Do you think there's a point at which the benefit to vetting Obama is outweighed by the missed opportunities to challenge McCain?
This week being of course the perfect example: how might we measure the lost opportunity of seriously damaging McCain on his claims to foreign policy expertise as well as focussing on his aloofness to the economy?
That's one issue.
The other is whether or not the vetting inflicted by Clinton can go beyond vetting and become the infliction of permanent damage.
The one thing to consider, I think, is that criticisms of Obama coming from a fellow Democrat are not quite the same as if they come from a Republican. The fact that a Democrat is making them, I think, lend them more credibility than they might have if the Democratic party put forth a united front in rejecting out of hand such attacks.
In other words, if McCain questions Obama's patriotism, it's par for the course, because you'd expect no less from a Republican. When Clinton does it, though, it's harder to write off as typical Republican smear tactics.
I totally get your point, but I think these factors should be considered as well.
What do you think?
-
In other words...
...if Clinton really wanted to help (and I know you're not suggesting she's vetting him for the good of the party), she would simultaneously bring forth potentially damaging stories like Wright, while at the same time dismissing their relevance or legitimacy.
That way, they'd be out there already, which would still serve the purpose you suggest, which is to preempt McCAin's using them, but the actual smearing would be left to McCain.
Since McCain has made intimations about not going negative, the ball would be in his court and he'd run the risk of making himself look venal if he tried to capitalize.
-
Look who is buying into this meme @Ricardo Malocchio
"I am astonished anyone could buy into it."
-- Ricardo Malocchio
It seems only Clinton supporters are that deluded.
Nastier? How much nastier can it get than for Clinton to villify the Reverend who supported her husband in his hour of need. How much nastier can it get than to insult all 8,000 members of the Trinity UCC by comparing them to defenders of Imus? How much nastier can it get than for her to fan the flames of racial hatred that result in the fact that Wright cannot even speak where he is scheduled not because they don't want him any more but because of security threats and the media circus?
A good and loving minister has been caricatured and villified and she not only does not stand up for him, she says he certainly would not have remained her pastor. What kind of a Democrat is she?
I heard another one (feminist author) arguing on NPR today, and she was so rude she interrupted the political commentator filling in for Ken Rudin when he had his 20 seconds to respond to her 5 minutes of talking and the moderator had to ask her to let him finish his point. She was making the same argument about why it is only "fair" for Clinton to continue.
It may be fair but I think it is amoral at this point.
She is making me sick.
I honestly did not see her in this light before the past month.
I'm getting embarrassed to self-identify as a feminist.
-
for the sake of democracy? @Diane B
Still for the sake of democracy we need to continue until the States have voted and their votes counted.
-- Diane B
You know, if Clinton had not resorted to these despicable tactics this would be a logical argument.
But she has crossed far too many lines for me. She is hurting our democracy. Especially if her actions mean we end up with McCain in the White House.
She is hurting our democracy by not standing up for Reverend Wright. She is hurting our democracy by furthering the attacks on the Black liberation theology movement in Black churches.
She is hurting our democracy when she argues that McCain is qualified to be Commander in Chief--when he's not--while claiming Barack Obama is not--when he actually is.
She is hurting democracy by feeding the cynicism of voters when she tells lies about her time as First Lady in order to prop up her main claim to be POTUS, her experience.
She is hurting our country.
She needs to be stopped.