Letters to the Editor
-
msdiscus is right
Msdiscus, thank you very much for your post. I think you have it exactly right and it needs to be said for those who spend their time on pro-Obama blogs. I live in a very red state and John McCain will win this state in November. That said, there are democrats here, and although there are some lefties like myself most of the dems are moderate or conservative.
Hillary Clinton won the democratic primary here and many democrats will not vote for Obama in the GE. The Wright flap has doomed him here, they will not vote for someone who says "God damn American" no matter how much Obama supports try to explain it. They will stay home or the more conservative ones will vote for McCain. The mitilary is the largest employer here and many people like his military record even if they think he is too conservative on many issues.
So why does it matter, if my state will vote for McCain anyway? The problem is coattails. Clinton will have them, Obama will not. Our state legislature has been see sawing between rep and dem, and large support for McCain could tip it toward rep. We have one democratic congress person and his seat could be in jeopardy if enough voters swing to McCain. I think the dems need every vote they get in congress, even those of our blue dog.
It makes me sad, to see what is happening AGAIN to the democrats. They will nominate a person who cannot win.
Sign me,
Depressed in Oklahoma
-
@Cythera - You're not going to shut me up with "anti-semite"
Uh, Cythera, I guess you've figured out how to get me to respond to your crap. Make a baseless accusation of bigotry. Hillary Clinton was asked what would be here response if Iran launched an attack on Israel. Her response, "obliterate" Iran. My comment was that not even Likud takes this position, i.e., not even the hard right Jewish political party takes this extreme position. In words that an intellectually challenged person would understand, even far right Israeli's do not want to "obliterate" Iran. So, I actually said exactly the opposite of what you implied. And if you won't admit that there is a substantial minority of Jewish voters who want to hear extremely tough talk when it comes to the defense of Israel, then you are either ignorant or dishonest.
The far-right neocon position is to talk tough to appease the Isreali lobby. It ain't anti-semitism to point this out, and it ain't anti-semitic to point out that Hillary is pandering to this electorate.
Finally, I don't play the "ism" or "you're a bigot because you disagree with me" game. You'll see I stayed out of the "is Hillary a victim of sexism" game being played here. Its a cheap way to shut down argument.
Your candidate had decided to stake out territory on the right. I'm gonna call her out on it. And you're not gonna shut me down with pathetic attempts to paint me as an anti-Semite because I don't buy into the neocon worldview. And no, I do not equate neoconservatism with Jews at all.
-
"I guess Clinton supporters are just toughened." - AKA Smith
Yep.
I always read Joan's blog posts, but if I venture into the comments, it's usually just to tiptoe... but now, I'll have to keep tabs on the budding friendship between AKA Smith and Carol Richards, and to see what else TRenee has posted.
Currently, I am a Clinton supporter, but when this election season began my first choice was Dodd (for campaigning to restore the Constitution) and then second was Edwards (for his Populism), and now Clinton who strikes me at my time of life as more of a populist than Obama. Still, my ultimate intention is to help elect the Democrat. We really cannot afford another GOP administration.
I make no claims about the purity of either Clinton or Obama, only that I will enthusiastically vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is in November. Yes, there is pandering... that's because they're campaigning.
The mistake is to conflate campaigning with governing.
Remember how everyone (especially the naive M$M) believed that GWB was going to be that "Compassionate Conservative," with the "humble" foreign policy? Well, anyone who bothered to read anything by Molly Ivins (may she rest in Peace) would have known that whatever his intentions, he would not be competent to fulfill them. And his actions, during his earlier history in Texas, before he was in office, meant that his political intentions were surely due more inspection.
And, of course, so many folks from both ends of the spectrum truly hated Gore as a candidate, not really stopping to think about how he would have governed... until they saw that SNL skit. [big bigh sigh...]
We have all seen some something of both Clinton and Obama in their public lives before, during, and after running for public office. In their histories we find some clues about how they would/will govern. That is what we should be focused on-- that and making sure that McCain is shown the door-- not on who is the purest campaigner, because, for now, our political system will not allow a campaign to succeed if it is "pure" enough to satisfy its ideological supporters. [Ironically, even the Republicans don't have a pure enough candidate this time.]
Enough with the personalities! That's the M$M's job... to distract us with personalities. Again, that's also how we ended up with Bush, and, at the rate the public discourse is presently proceeding, we could end up with McBush. [ugh! ugh! ugh!] From where I sit, it appears he would be far, far worse.
-
@weeping
· Joan, your article to me as a Black man is akin to a man telling a woman what it feels like to be pregnant--- you have no clue." Weeping for Brunnhilde
Weep, nobody thinks we can feel the pain of another, but we can sympathize. If you dismiss, even sneer at our desire to reach out then the only response you will get is a cold shoulder. You are starting to sound self-serving and that will get you nowhere because most people really don’t give a shit. They are struggling to make the most of their own lives. Obama is a politician and he is no less immune to attack than any other politician. He showed he understood that today by denouncing Mr. Wright.
By the way, I think Jeremiah Wright is an opportunist and appears to be as racist as those he denounces. No amount of apologetics from you, Dr. Rhyme or anyone else will change how many people or I feel about that. And what is Dr. Rhyme saying? That he will turn his back on well meaning moderate people? What is he suggesting? A revolution?
You’re losing me here but then I guess I wouldn’t understand, would I?
Despite your bitterness I would still try to meet you halfway.