Letters to the Editor
-
stopped unschooler?
She has a right to push on if it pleases her to, however at the rate she's going she's tripping herself up all over the place. The almighty mendacity of her claims about N. Ireland and Bosnia have blown up in face, her approvals are lower than low, and her good word's a disgrace.
-
Huh?
Only a Hillary automaton would be so bold as to claim that internecine warfare is good for the Democrats.
It reminds me of Bill Clinton's squeaker victory over Bush 41, when he claimed he had a 'mandate for change' -- then immediately eviscerated what little political capital he actually had, causing the party to lose Congress.
-
Claiming a "Mandate for Change" seems to be common to both parties
I'm not criticizing here. Just that I genuinely had not remembered Clinton's "mandate" comments. Were they not eerily close to GWB's 2004 proclimation "I've been given political capital... and I intend to use it!" (and not only used it up but overdrew the account by the end of the month...
Maybe we should just throw the whole lot of them out the window and go back to a monarchy. I find it difficult to believe we would be in any worse shape.
I'm sooo depressed right now. It is truly sad when you think "I better go to work now... maybe that will cheer me up."
Have wonderful days all.
Depressed in NC
-
tom hayden, danny glover et. all speak out on feminism
and this campaign in:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/hayden_et_al
"We take very seriously the argument that Americans should elect a first woman President, and we abhor the surfacing of sexism in this supposedly post-feminist era. But none of us would vote for Condoleezza Rice as either the first woman or first African-American President. We regret that the choice divides so many progressive friends and allies, but believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a Clinton presidency all over again, not a triumph of feminism but a restoration of the aging, power-driven Wall Street Democratic hawks at a moment when so much more fresh imagination is possible and needed. A Clinton victory could only be achieved by the dashing of hope among millions of young people on whom a better future depends. The style of the Clintons' attacks on Obama, which are likely to escalate as her chances of winning decline, already risks losing too many Democratic and independent voters in November. We believe that the Hillary Clinton of 1968 would be an Obama volunteer today, just as she once marched in the snows of New Hampshire for Eugene McCarthy against the Democratic establishment."
-
Republicans reach far deeper into the "dark side"
The truth is that Hillary and Barack will not be able to hurt each other more than the Republicans would try to - the Republicans do reach into the "dark side" of manipulation and tactics to use whatever means necessary to try and win. Look at what much of Bush's adm did - the so called "compassionate conservative" brought us a brazen, reckless war, Guantanamo, torture techniques. They went to the "dark side" until it unfolded on them with such massive destruction that they could not hide nor control it anymore.
Democrats usually play nice; like a sports match. Competitive but mostly decent.
This has been the ugliest Democratic race I've ever seen, but it's because the Obama campaign is using old Republican attacks on the Clintons.
You see it is a strategy the Republicans like to use against the Clintons: "The Clintons will do anything to win." When it's actually the Republicans who will do anything to win, and this is just a strategy against the Clintons that seeks to deceive and cloak the actual reality, and work against the opponent (in this case the Clintons) at the same time. It's like the Republican campaign strategy version of 'weapons of mass destruction.' You say that your 'opponent' 'has them' - they say the 'Clintons' 'have them.' But the Obama campaign co-opted this purposefully from the beginning saying Hillary "will say anything" to win. Same overall strategy/tactic - same phrasing - slightly different verb.
So now, anything Hillary says, is spun and "labeled" to be the lowest denominator.
She could say "Happy Easter," and a Tim Russert type would say:
"Obviously, she's trying to change the subject. She's behind in the math. She's trying to tell the American people what they want to hear. Everyone knows she'll say anything to win... And she's not even above bringing Easter into the equation... that's how low the Clintons will go..." So that Hillary saying "Happy Easter," would take on a diabolical strategy position. Sound too familiar? That's because it is - it's quite ridiculous. It's like you frame your opponent with blame.
She can't even answer a press question addressed to her about Reverend Wright, without being accused of bringing it up to change the subject.
The truth is what the Democrats do to each other is nothing compared to what the Republicans will do to them.
Again - it won't be John McCain - but the 527s and rumours.
-
woops, meant et. al. also @ljwalker 53
Sorry if I offended you earlier when I discussed the patronizing tone. I acknowledge that it wasn't pervasive in your post and I was probably being overly sensitive based on my perceptions of lots of projection in Clinton and many supporters--chalk it up to my posting with insomnia in the middle of the night. Apologies.
-
Celebrities can have opinions
Celebrities can have opinions, but that doesn't mean that they are truly insightful.
-
Hillary's 5% chance
Joan's pathetic attempt to find a silver lining in this bloody Democratic primary debacle -- namely the fact that Dan Balz thinks it's "good" for the party -- is more evidence of just how much Klinton Kool Aid she's been drinking.
The irony here, Joan, is what your article SHOULD have been talking about is buried in the third line of your last paragraph, reading:
"I'm concerned about reports that as many as a quarter of each Democrat's supporters say they'll vote for John McCain if their candidate fails."
You're concerned, Joan? Oh, yes, BE concerned. Be VERY concerned. Because it's not some meaningless report that you can simply brush aside and say -- "But I don't believe it" -- even though that's exactly what you did. This report is a blockbuster insight taken from a current Rasmussen poll. THAT's the story here, Joan. Not some starry-eyed take on "how good" all this gutter sniping that Hillary now has confessed she plans to take all the way to the convention in August.
The fact is, Hillary needs to get out -- now.
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen of Politico that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of winning the nomination. Now, after losing her battle for revotes in Michigan and Florida, and topping it off with her "sleep deprived" Bosnia lie, David Brooks of the New York Times believes she's probably down to a 5 percent chance.
I suggest your time would be better spent reading yesterday's article by Mr. Brooks' entitled "The Long Defeat" rather than deluding yourself over fantasies put forth by misguided scribes like Dan Balz. The Brooks article details precisely what Hillary is willing to do to the party over the next three months for her meeker 5% chance at victory. Go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html
and, for once, allow reality to slap you in the face nice and hard, Joan.