Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
The letters thread is now closed.
1. Hillary Clinton is a Methodist. The Methodist church follows a book called: "The Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church," which regulates their activities. The Book currently contains a number of clauses relating to homosexuality:
"Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church."
"The council on [Finance and Administration] shall be responsible for ensuring that no board, agency, committee, commission, or council shall give United Methodist funds to any gay caucus or group, or otherwise use such funds to promote the acceptance of homosexuality. The council shall have the right to stop such expenditures."
Joan, if you are actually balanced as you claim, then do explain how membership in a homophobic church doesn't make Hillary Clinton an anathema to all gays, and an unacceptable candidate for any reasonable, liberal, fair-thinking person who believes in equal rights and who opposes discrimination.
2. Direct quote from Hillary Clinton:
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Joan, if you are actually balanced as you claim, then do explain how this particular statement is not a continuation of the same neocon strategy that has been so destructive to America and the world. And while you're at it, please do explain how and why such a right-wing, hawkish, necon perspective doesn't automatically disqualify Hillary Clinton from consideration as a DEMOCRATIC nominee.
3. Hillary Clinton has strong Republican roots:
Joan, if you are actually balanced as you claim, then please explain how Hillary Clinton's Republican roots and activism shouldn't disqualify her from being a Democratic presidential candidate. And while you're at it, please also explain how, given the new standard you apply -- anyone a candidate has ever supported, known, or been affiliated with is a proxy for that candidate himself or herself -- Hillary can credibly claim to be a Democrat.
We're waiting, Joan. You're fair? You're balanced? You're impartial?
Let's see you flex some of that "famed" impartiality of yours...
Well, we're waiting...
the less I believe you believe what you say. Why is that?
Joan now gets to write another jaundiced article about rev Wright's speech to the NAACP
Could somebody ask Rev. Wright? Maybe there's a dominant gene that controls it.
This guy is going to be the gift that keeps on giving...
Forget "tin eared", how about "Joan-deaf"?
Right. This is America and people get to have different opinions and vote their opinions. I am far more concerned about McCain's position on abortion than I am Clinton's statement on Iran. I don't particularly like either one of them, but if you were to ask me which one would be more likely to impact the life of my 25 year old daughter, Clinton's saber rattling or McCain's antichoice position which will drastically affect the composition of SCOTUS and will likely result in overturning Roe v. Wade, then the latter is of more importance to me.
Likewise, I liked John Edwards positions on poverty and thought that they might be more likely to effect the real economic struggles of people I actually know than either Clinton's or Obama's.
Also, I weigh which is truly more likely to make a real difference, a speech Obama gave speaking generally about good wars and bad wars before he ever attained his Senate seat or Clinton's plan to work for universal health coverage. Since their Senate records on the war are not substantially different, Clinton's position on health care counts more with me.
The notion that foreign policy is more important than domestic policy is not a legitimate progressive position. The traditional progressive tradition is to redistribute wealth in such a way as to help the poorest in this country.
Dismissing people who think their own positions are valid is not exactly a good way to win supporters for any candidate.
It is all to easy for men to dismiss positions on abortion because they are quite unlikely to have one. However, those that do not think choice is important should be willing to pay the resulting child support.
Reverend Wright finally got something right when he said that Obama is a politician who will say or do anything to get elected. PRAISE Jesus and AMEN.
As far as Reverend Wright being either justified or someone who will disappear from the radar WRONG WRONG WRONG. First, let's really talk about race, because I would love to get down with this topic. Slavery is a two way street--you have to have sellers and buyers. BLACK AFRICAN PEOPLE sold THEIR OWN PEOPLE to WHITE PEOPLE. BLACK AFRICAN PEOPLE are STILL SELLING THEIR OWN PEOPLE TO OTHER BLACK PEOPLE. So, if you want to trash talk an entire country boys and girls start in AFRICA because this is where slavery is still ALIVE and BOOMING. National Geographic, TIMES, Newsweek, etc., etc. have all reported on the slave trade in Africa and how the ONLY groups actively organized and buying back those enslaved are white groups in America. America holds the high ground as far as slavery goes because we have progressed and have programs (welfare, affirmative action, etc., etc) to help descendants of those hurt by racism. So don't go there unless you want to really talk about bitterness. I have a hell of a lot of bitterness for Africans who scream about America while they enslave their own and mutilate the genitals of little girls in the name of tradition. I will give you bitter you bastards.
Next, Rev. Wright and his ego-driven hate-mongering is evil. Pure and evil. He has benefitted his whole life from living in this country--and done quite well. He only talks trash because it pays well, and it allows him to absolve his community of any responsibility for their downfall. Drugs, Violent and misogynistic rap music, children having multiple babies, youth dropping out of school, Fatherless homes---there is no lack of issues he could and SHOULD address and ask his church followers to address also. But it appears to be easier and more financially productive to just blame whitie.
Well, this whitie doesn't want to listen. She is bitter of your whining and failure to stand up and take even a tad bit of responsibility. I've got women and children dying here, and you want to preach from your pulpit about the evils of America. GIVE ME A GOD DAMN BREAK. Let's talk about overpopulation going on in Africa and how men are killing their wives and babies with Aids as well as the environment. Let's talk about what the tribes in Darfur are doing to each other and most especially the women and children. Let's talk about the female sex slavery market alive and well all over this world. Hey, let's talk about the female sex slave market in Texas pretending to be a church. BUT PLEASE no more god damning America over racism without an in-turn god damning black people for not fucking staying in school, getting an education, and making someone of yourself. It's a two way street people, and if I offer a hand up and you don't take it well there you go....
Finally, Rev. Wright in and of himself does not make Obama unelectable, but rather Mr. Obama for choosing this man as preacher and mentor for 20 years is what makes Mr. Obama unelectable. Evil is as evil does, and so both of these men deserve each other.
Two choices you liberal bastards....Hillary or McCain. Hillary or McCain. God Damn you all if you let this man become our next president...god damn you all....