Letters to the Editor
-
*Goodnight* -
Uncle Fester -
You are still spinning it too much.
To realize is "to make something real" by definition.
In America for example, when you become a citizen legally - you become a "real" American citizen. You are not a real American citizen until it is legal.
She is not trying to diminish MLK or Obama as much as you think at all - but she is in a race for the nomination - and she is trying to compare and say that it is also very important to be a really, really hard dedicated worker like she is.
LBJ has to work really, really hard to get the Civil Right's bill passed. He was determined, and he kept at it. It didn't happen easily. It was very complicated and there was a lot of resistance. Bill Moyers was there. He talked about it.
One of the reasons Obama doesn't like to debate her, is because she is so knowledgeable - he still has a lot to learn, and he has admitted as much - but she knows "circles" around him.
That is why I truly believe she would be a more efficient and effective President at this time, and he would later after he's has more experience.
Plus, he has a better chance of winning against Republicans after he's had more experience proving himself on the national scene.
I've said it before. Most importantly, I want a Democrat to win. Last election a majority voted for Bush. The country has changed some, but not that much. McCain is doing great, and steady - in the polls. I really don't think Barack has good chances of winning a majority among swing voters.
I will vote for him if he is the nominee. But if we lose, like I think we would - I will be especially mad at all those high ranking Party Dems who still don't seem to understand swing voters.
-
Joan, your anti-Obama bias has officially passed into nonsense
Either admit you're actually not a liberal, or start giving us some evidence that you are!
You can't just gloss over the horrid quality of Wednesday's debate - namely the vapidity and pettiness of the debate questions, the utter waste of time it was for the 10 million + viewers (voters, nearly all), and the profound disservice such journalistic incompetence does our democracy - with a dozen-word segue like "Sure, I wish there had been more substance to the ABC debate..." and expect readers here to give you a pass.
The lack of substance in the moderators' questions - and the fact that such lazy, incompetent, and dishonest behavior from our media has become so run-of-the-mill that it's passed off by these talking heads as "being tough" - these ARE the main issues.
Your own title, labeling Obama's quite normal, progressive reaction to the moderators' blather as a "stumble," and your explicit defense of the queries as "tough questioning" is hard to read as anything but championing the current practices and profoundly low standards of today's conservative media (hardly a liberal trait).
In my view, this has become a habit with you, as you appear increasingly eager to put liberal ideals (concern for honesty, logic, consistency, fairness) aside if that will help you argue for Hillary or against Barack.
But bias is the antithesis of liberalism, and as such, it doesn't belong in a Salon editorial, from anyone.
-
Nature and Convention
Obama is Natural; Hillary, conventional, i.e., "traditional American politics" with all its 90's negativity.
Obama has Imagination; Hillary has "advisors" and her own experience.
Obama has a new name, an engaging middle name, a cosmopolitan surname--Obama. Hillary Clinton has a very tired, conventional name--and a tired political "machine" to match.
In politics of course you need both the natural and the conventional. You need the universal Rights provided by Nature and Nature's God. But you also need "consent," i.e., popularity. If you've ever worked in retail, you know that folks like to stick to what they are used to.
Nature is eternal; convention (tradition) is subject to change. In Book Five of his "Nichomachean Ethics," Aristotle argues that "natural justice" or "natural right" while based upon consent and law and tradition--can supercede "what people are used to," so to speak--and I'm obviously not quoting here.
To the extent that Barack Obama has been a Force of Nature, sort of like Bill Clinton was, vis-a-vis George Bush in 1992, he may prevail by winning the nomination.
To the extent that Barack has the mark of Providence on him, the mark of destiny, as Abe Lincoln, his possible predecessor had, he may win in November.
My own intuition at this juncture is that Barack senses, like the intuitive Clinton felt, that he is bound and determined, almost, to win in November. McCain has rather confidently but also nervously averred that he does not believe "anyone is destined to become POTUS."
Having opined all this, I think it will be a miracle if 1) Obama wins the nomination and 2) Obama wins the White House.
But I believe in miracles because I was personally one of those who "was blind" and then was made to see; I was personally one of those elected ones who "was deaf" and then was made to hear (the meaning of "I can't, but we can"). Prior to my conversion in AA, I was "apart from." After AA, after the miracle occurred, I became "a part of" something greater than, as McCain puts it so nobly, my own "self interest."
The pro-Lifer in me loves McCain; the world peace lover in me loves Obama. Somehow, someway, these two principles, if you will, need to be seen for what they are--One Principle, the Unity of Life in Christ. May the best man--or woman--win.
-
Hey at least Joan mentions Hillary Clinton's sheepish yet arrogant Bosnia response
Okay, so Joan claims Obama "stumbled." I dunno, I didn't see Obama stumble, but then again I only watched the first half of the debate. I was pretty turned off by it at that point, though I read a little more in the NYT (WashPo?) transcription. But The Daily Show showed a couple clips of Obama "um"-ing and using halting speech, which I suppose is a form of stumble. He did seem tired. Everything I saw of him, that first hour, though, was right on. He hit back at Hillary's pile-on about that Weather Underground guy by mentioning Bill Clinton's pardons, and he essentially called the moderators and Hillary out on their bullshit with a fair amount of grace.
Let's face it, Obama was under attack here, both by the moderators and Hillary. The Rev. Wright stuff, the Weather Underground stuff, the inexplicable Farrakhan stuff (the thought "not this shit again!" is entering my mind a lot lately), and of course the idiotic flag-pin stuff were highlights. As it turns out, the flag-pin garbage was cherry-picked by ABC from a NYT article, and they even tracked down the same sad-sack interviewee to repeat the question.
As for Obama looking annoyed, was half of your screen on the fritz or what? Hillary looked just as annoyed! Did you see the way both of them tilted their heads uncomfortably when each new "gotcha," no-substance question began? Hillary wasn't much happier than Obama was! What show were you watching? Windex your TV screen, you missed half of it!
As for Hillary's answer to the Bosnia question, Joan got that right. Hillary Clinton completely biffed it. She as much as admitted to lying, but she didn't say jack squat about why she lied, or why we shouldn't expect her to lie again in the future. I was actually really surprised she even admitted to lying; I did a double-take -- wait....isn't she going to cover up and obfuscate further? I guess the question is whether people want to forgive her after she admitted that she was trying to exaggerate for effect. I don't see why anybody ought to, vote-wise, but one good thing that can be said about Hillary's answer is that it will probably prevent people from asking her about it again ("I already addressed that at the debate...").
All in all, I would say that the first hour of the debate pretty well tainted the whole thing. I don't think it will have changed anybody's opinion one way or the other. Besides, whatever points Obama might have lost in the public from the debate, he seems to have gained back the very next day, with his commanding and witty post-debate summary, and massive endorsements from a fomer Clinton cabinent member and two big names in the Michael Bloomberg administration. Not to mention Howard Dean's pressure on the superdelegates, who at this point are likely to split down the middle at least, and maintain Obama's clear lead.
My prediction: Hillary wins PA by only a few percent. Then Obama comes back in NC and wins by 10% or more. Then he takes Colorado and Oregon, and Hillary gets (Kentucky? West Virginia?). Sorry I can't remember all of what's left. But it looks to be an even split at best for Hillary, which means a loss.