Letters to the Editor
-
I try not to post here
because the letter sections is too often more intelligent than the columns. But I had to respond to this -
"I fear this will be a very bitter election if it is McCain vs. Obama - you couldn't have two more polarized sides. There will be much bitterness, clinging, opposing-side hatred, accusations, and vitriol."
Ummm, you know, we need a bitter election. We need to confront the issues head-on, that is why I like Obama. No wavering, no triangulation, Obama is against the war (you know that bitter thing in Iraq) and McCain is for it. Obama wants to open a dialogue with Iran, McCain wants to bomb Iran. No wiggle-room, no triangualtion. A full-on debate about the central issue that has driven the political turmoil in this country for the last 8 years. Torture, the constitution, spying, congressional oversight - they all have one thing at their core - the Iraq War. McCain vs. Obama will put the Iraq war at the center of the election. And as a Democrat, that is a debate I think we can win.
-
Stop blaming the debate moderators and Hillary
They were just bringing up the issues Republicans will focus on.
Democrats lose to Republicans again, and again. Most Democrats are naive to Republican attacks.
amoderate and others:
Hillary was just trying to forecast those attacks because they will be an issue in the general. She was just being a messenger. Even Barack said they were the Republican attacks.
The moderators brought them up because they are the Republican attacks, and they are issues on the minds of many moderate/centrist/conservative voters.
Even now, John McCain is doing great in the polls, and Republicans haven't even really starting attacking the Democrats yet.
Hillary has been demonized. She gets demonized no matter what she does.
She was not "sticking the knife in." That is Barack's way of demonizing her. He said that.
She can warn people and bring these points up now, or you can all be a bunch of dufus's who don't get it when they are brought up in the general election, and we lose.
Barack's campaign strategy has been to frame Hillary and her campaign as negative and his as positive. But then all he and his campaign do is attack her with the most negative attacks, and spend all their time making her look as negative as they possibly can.
They frame her with negativity and blame.
They say all these horrible things about her.
They are the ones who have done nothing but used the most negative attacks on her.
People always characterize women as whining and complaining more than men. Again it's a double standard.
When Hillary brought up the point of getting questions first at debates, she was just pointing it out. She doesn't care. She's great at all the questions - she knows circles around Barack.
He doesn't even want to debate her any more because she's so much better at it than he is. But he wants to debate McCain. So it's not that he doesn't like to debate - just not against someone who beats him as easily as Hillary does.
Barack is kind of being a baby about debates with Hillary and these questions. There are many Americans who do care about hose issues. They do matter to a lot of Americans who don't trust him because of these issues. He's got to deal with that,
the more he dismisses it and equivocates, the less they will trust him.
-
@fishsandwich
I am interested in your experience, and would like you to address the Ayers thing.
Let's say that you were in Barack's shoes, and in the "bare it all" session. Would the Ayers thing come up? I believe that Barack went once to the house of Ayers for a party. How is this an issue?
I agree, bare it all. However, in so many of these cases, this crap is being made up as they go along. Ayers was 40 years ago a subversive. Today, he's an English professor, and very respectable. He paid his debt.
So, the problem is that, increasingly, it's wack-a-mole, and the mole, once wacked, just pops up again.
-
Joan isn't doing ANYTHING.
Once again the bots launch teir inane rants against Joan and desperate search for hidden persecution.
Joan isn't doing anything nor can any reasoned detected some hidden Hillary bias in anything she's yet produced. Rather she's seemed, unfortunately like far too many, to be intimidated by the vile, foul, bots.
On the other hand if Joan DOES believe Obama is as devastating a candidate for the Dems as he will be than she has every right to voice her opinion as the citizen of the USA.
After all that was the justification of hefty-again Oprah said as she went Hollywood Hoofing on stage with Obama, infiltrating his campaign with millions of dollars and igniting his entire race-baited won early primary successes in the south.
Now that it's transparently obvious that a weak-resumed, never-delivered-anything, hatemongering, crooked, name-changing Muslim till 35, elitist, most liberal, et al, man who built his entire platform on being half-black can't win, it would be a good time for every liberal of conscience to come forward and say it like it is.
-
Are you competing with the New Republic for irrelevancy, Joan?
Because it really seems like it. When you find yourself agreeing with David Brooks, it's a really bad sign.
-
@biggerlies
"They frame her with negativity and blame.
They say all these horrible things about her."
No one forced her to say that John McCain was ready for the presidency, and that Barack was not. This was her choice. She was the one who made herself into a bitch saying this stuff.
Time after time, she does it to herself, and her moronic clownlike followers blame Barack.
Why is that?
-
deeper truth....what do you think about the umbrella policy in the middle east?
No one is bringing up substantive issues...nothing is new. But I wondered about the ramifications for conflict with Iran...if the US acts to protect say Saudi Arabia with the same strength that it has used to protect NATO allies...
Possibly the biggest policy difference between Obama and Clinton as far as I can tell is foreign policy. This isn't about who voted for the war to begin with....I'm not looking backwards at this point. However, from everything I have read I believe that the neocon agenda with McCain ready to take up its helm is for the US to be stationed in Iraq for the forseeable future. Permanent (100 year or more) military stations in the Middle East.
For this reason, I was alarmed in the debate when Clinton mentioned an umbrella policy in the Middle East, because although I know she wants to scale down troop levels in Iraq: is she going to agree to the permanent bases in the middle east? What would an umbrella policy mean on the ground?
I just wondered what Clinton's supporters thought about this.