Letters to the Editor
-
I'm so fearful of being fucked with
That I have had a flag pin surgically grafted to the left side of my chest...or should it have been the right!??!
-
@Vanco52 YOU ARE WRONG AND YOU ARE SPREADING LIES -- THAT WAS NOT CLINTON'S PASTOR
FROM THE ARTICLE: But as the former Clinton pastor was sentenced Friday to three years in prison for inappropriately touching a 7-year-old girl at his home last March, Judge Michael L. Dwyer said Procanick sacrificed his honesty the day he testified.
Stop lying Canco52! Procanick was pastor at Resurrection Assembly of God Church in Clinton, NY before stepping down in Spring of 2007.
Clinton is a LOCATION, not a person, in this case!
-
Will Hillary's stiff performance on the Colbert Report hurt her?
Edwards and Obama were much better on Thursday night's show.
Here is a link if you missed it.
-
Sorry link didn't work in last post
http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/04/17/who-got-the-bump-clinton-obama-and-edwards-on-the-colbert-report/
-
Slate has a fun little delegate counter
Here: http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
You can set the margins of victory on all the remaining races and see how the delegate count ends up. Even if you give Clinton a 10-point victory in each remaining race, and even if you go ahead and include a 10-point victory in Florida and Michigan and throw those in, SHE STILL LOSES. Get it? It's called 'math,' and it's biased against Clinton (and oh yeah, and Obama is now 20 points up on Clinton in national polls). Almost every journalist other than Walsh gets this, and understands the primary to be effectively over and the race to now be about Obama vs. McCain, and directs their attentions accordingly (see Steve Benen and Greenwald here on Salon). At this point, attacking Obama means nothing politically other than helping McCain. That's fine if you are a McCain supporter, but if you aren't, well, other unflattering words come to mind.
-
Hillary stiff?
Uh-uh...you gotta be playin' trick with me!
-
Stiff!?!
#
Will Hillary's stiff performance on the Colbert Report hurt her?
Edwards and Obama were much better on Thursday night's show.
Here is a link if you missed it.
-- altab
[Read altab's other letters]
Permalink Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:58 AM
#
Sorry link didn't work in last post
http://blog.indecision2008.com/2008/04/17/who-got-the-bump-clinton-obama-and-edwards-on-the-colbert-report/
-- altab
Here I thought we only had to worry about Bill being stiff.
Can you imagine if Hillary won AND Bill with all that time on his hands running around the WH. :^)
-
Who is hurting the party?
Obama is given credit for bringing new people into the party. But are they here for the party, or for one person? Exit polling has shown that a large number of Obama supporters in the primaries, particularly new voters, have marked their ballot for Obama and left the polling place. A much larger pportion of Clinton supporters stayed to vote for offices down the ballot.
I hope that this is not true, or that if it is, these new voters will change their ways in the general election if Obama is the candidate. It's obvious to me that if Obama wins the nomination, the party needs Clinton supporters to keep, let alone expand, its lead in Congress.
Aside from any policy differences between the candidates, the attitude of many Obama supporters, especially the new people, has caused a lot of resentment. There are those of us who have worked for years for liberal and Democratic causes, and we don't particularly like it when people who have not been involved before, and therefore are ignorant of much of the historical process, come along and call us names because we support Hillary. She is accused of doing the GOP's work for them, but the Obama folks for months have been rehashing Whitewater and Vince Foster (in this letters forum) and other old Republican smears against Clinton.
It's understandable that, all other things being equal, black voters prefer Obama (as many women prefer Clinton), but to call the Clintons racists is a stupid ignorant lie. But that's part of the game, anyone who criticizes He Who May Not Be Questioned is a racist. (Jessed Jackson Jr. said Hillary is a racist because she did not publicly weep after Katrina. That's really raising the political discourse, isn't it? Like calling Clinton a "fucking whore" is the sign of a new kind of politics.)
Win or lose, the real test is for Obama's supporters. A lot of us who are for Clinton (and who will still vote for Obama in November) have stayed with progressive and liberal causes through thick and thin, and mostly thin, for decades. (As for bad mouthing the boomers, I'll pay attention when half a million Obama supporters surround the Pentagon to protest Iraq.)
Will Obama's new supporters stay active, especially if their guy loses? Is this really a new political activism or hero worship? Are these people concerned with issues or just with the identity of the messiah? As mistaken as they sometimes were in tactics, the civil rights and anti-Vietnam movemnents did not die when Martin Luther King and Bob Kennedy were killed. But Michelle Obama is on record as saying this is it, Obama must win now because they won't give us a second chance to vote for the man. What kind of dedication is that?
The real question is not who you are for, but what you are for, and how long will you stick with it? The people who have stuck with it for years through bad times and political losses won't look kindly on those of you who are now calling us names if you run and hide when the election is over.
-
“The crowd was alive........ great speech........ thousands .........chanting Obama, Obama Obama!!!”
As Hillary Rodham Clinton is being sworn in as the 44th, President of The United States, all the pejorative terms her detractors tried to smear her with will now be officially replaced with.......... “Madam President.”
-
For Clintons, a Time to Find Truest Friends, if they have any left
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/us/politics/20loyalty.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1208632151-6W+UQe+7EFccmIdd3A00dA
But one person’s “disloyalty” is, to another set of eyes, well-deserved “comeuppance.” And there is no shortage of powerful Democrats who are quick to accuse the Clintons of defining loyalty as a one-way street, with little regard for the sacrifices they have made for a couple whose own political needs seem to their critics always to come first.
-
What Debate?
I didn't see a debate, an opportunity to compare and contrast ideas and proposals between two candidates. It was an insult.
"Senator Obama, even though no measure of a candidate could be more worthless than a willingness to pin a ceramic flag pin, probably made in China, to your lapel, you won't do it. What's the deal with that, Dude?"
"Senator Clinton, same question: Why do YOU think Senator Obama refuses to wear a flag pin on his lapel?"
And so on, and so on, to the weary end of the world.
Joan, I am very disappointed with Salon's coverage of this election as you consistently beat the drum for Hillary's nomination no matter the cost. You support her. I get that. But I so rarely see any articles telling me why I should vote for her or what makes her the best candidate, or addressing the serious reservations I have about her; however, I do see many articles trying to scare me out of voting for Obama. Throughout several letter threads I've tried to politely engage several Hillary supporters, and generally elevate the discussion beyond the Obamatron/Hillarybot sniping. I've exchanged a few pleasant posts with Hillary supporters, but still don't have the answers I seek.
A website like Salon should be leading the charge in elevating this debate. Instead of talking about Obama's alleged stumbles, you should be joining your voice to those who are rightly voicing frustration at the insipid questions, the last chance we have as voters, to listen and cast informed votes for the candidate who seems to best represent our philosophy and outlook toward the problems facing us. If Hillary and McCain were debating, and the first hour was devoted to asking Hillary questions about "likability" and "Bosniagate" and "Why didn't you divorce Bill? Are you a doormat, or just a dumb sucker, or were you afraid of losing access to all that built-up political power?"-- if that was the case, Joan, I don't think you'd be writing a column about her "stumbles." You'd be livid at the pointlessness of the questions; you sure as hell wouldn't be running around the next day suggesting she should just get "out of the kitchen" if she didn't like the questions.
Bottom line: I recently renewed a subscription to Salon using money that I really can't afford. I've been holding off on canceling that subscription in the hopes of seeing Salon take its place at the forefront of leading a helpful discussion of the where we stand as progressive/liberals, but so far this has not happened; I still have hopes, however. Hillarybots/Obamatrons: We do have a common enemy, do we not? Remember McCain? He of the Shia/Sunni what's the dif? foreign policy? Who thinks the Surge was all about cutting senseless slaughter by 30 percent and everything is just great? The guy who is actually being painted by the media as a MODERATE alternative when in reality he is nowhere near being a moderate?
Time's running out, Joan. You are perfectly positioned to assume a true leadership role in the coming months, but you can't achieve this by endlessly trying to tear down someone who should be viewed as a valuable ally in the greater war.