Letters to the Editor
-
On FOX
Last night on the little text ticker at the bottom of the screen displaying exit polling data etc., during the election coverage they refer to Obama a "BHO"...got to get that middle initial in there at least.
-
Joan Walsh, racism and facts!
GRRRRRR!!!
Joan writes:
"I don't pretend to have an answer for Obama's troubles in Appalachia. No doubt some of it is racism -- exit polls reported a quarter of Clinton's Kentucky supporters said race was an issue in their vote -- but I don't believe racism alone accounts for such mind-blowing Clinton wins (and Obama supporters who indulge in despicable Appalachian stereotypes to explain his losses aren't doing their alleged candidate any favors)."
Joan has supported Hillary since day 1, and that's great. She's my Senator, and I once supported her too.
BUT, to dismiss Obama supporters - no, to really diss Obama supporters, for pointing to a factor she has just verified in the same column is ludicrous!
Joan has bemoaned the "sexism" of some Obama supporters for months now.
Yet, even after she admits that a quarter of Clinton's Kentucky supporters said race was an issue in their vote, she cautions that if a Barack supporter points to that figure as a factor, they somehow have it wrong?
Then, in an apparent loss of her logical faculties, Ms. Walsh points out:
"Take away a quarter of Clinton's voters: She'd still have beaten Obama roughly 340,000 to 210,000, or about 60-40."
Let's just use a smidgen of critical thought here. We all know, both from personal experience and from many, many reports and studies done over the decades, that most racists will tell strangers [exit pollers] that race never has an effect on their choices.
So, when a full quarter of the voters approached by a stranger, moments after voting their choice between a White woman and a Black male say "Hell yes, race is a factor in my vote", simian intelligence can predict there are other racists hiding their feelings.
Joan again:
" . . . Obama supporters who indulge in despicable Appalachian stereotypes to explain his losses aren't doing their alleged candidate any favors."
Uh . . . I assume the stereotype Ms. Walsh refers to is the one about some areas containing more bigots than others.
If so, when Joan shows figures for other States that make the 25% of Kentuckians who admit to race being a factor in voting, she'll have made a point.
Thus far, those who claim a racist effect in Kentucky and West Virginia have that minor demon, facts, on their side.
Finally, NO Joan, Barack did not just lose 25% of the vote due to his lack of need for sunless tan products.
He lost well over 25% of those voters, and Joan Walsh either realizes that and is allowing partisanship to color her column, or Joan really isn't aware of most racist's proclivity to hide their ignorance in silence. If she doesn't realize that she has no business pontificating on politics!
-
To Carole Richards
Thanks.
I wasn't trying to hide my preference; I just wanted to downplay it because on a certain level I'd like to think it wasn't relevant to my arguments. For the record, I voted for Obama in my state's primary, oh these many months ago (Super Tuesday).
Although I am not happy with some of the things that the Clinton campaign has done (especially lately), I would support her in the general election if she were the nominee.
I don't mind that many people support Clinton, and I think she should stay in the race until June 3rd, depending on what the super delegates decide to do.
I also don't mind if Joan Walsh tilts a certain way in her personal blog (isn't that what it's for?). But if we are going to read her blog and use it as a springboard for these kinds of discussion, we should be aware of that preference/bias.
What I do mind is bias in Salon's coverage (separate from individual blogs or opinion pieces). Especially bias that pretends it isn't bias. I also don't like arguments for any candidate, Democratic or Republican, based on racism, sexism, lies, distortions, etc. Does that make me naive and idealistic? Maybe.
-
blow-jobs and Obama
If teen oral-sex is not substituting for full-on sex, how can anybody still assume that Clinton is earning votes based on merit? No, wait. If teens are having both full-on sex and oral-sex, does that help us understand why Obama is so bad at making Clinton voters want to vote for him? There are still loads (not intended) and loads (intended) of people who wish to vote for Clinton and teens are not stopping at simple oral-stimulation.
Does everybody see what I'm getting at? Obama has not reached out in a way that proves he can destory Clinton in a primary, while simultaneously, teens are not only having oral-sex but are going even further by having full-on sex! In the midst of all this sex, why hasn't Obama convinced more Clinton voters that they have voted incorrectly? What does it mean that Clinton still gets big votes while teens are going beyond the blow-job?
I'm worried. Here is the thing: I don't know what to do about the teen sex or Obama's inability to prove that people should not be voting for Hillary. How are we going to prove that Hillary's victories prove that she did not earn them herself? And what about the sex?
** the teen sex data was drawn from a Salon headline that I will now go read
-
Obama for VP is a win 2008 and win 2016
Obama on top will be another tragedy for Dem. He cannot win November if he is on top. He needs another 4 or 8 years to get stronger and more mature. Copying other's policies does not make you a good policy maker.
-
attn: Steve Hall
Yes, those lines could very well come from the "noise machine" we know so well.
Also, I used your link to Egan's "White on White" article in today's NY Times. It is a good one. Thanks!
-
RJforHRC
I'd say Obama's chances at winning the election this fall are far better than Hillary's. Since he's actually going to be headlining the ticket and Hillary will be watching from the sidelines. Hard to become President if you can't secure your party's nomination, y'know?
I can appreciate that some Hillary supporters feel strongly about their chosen candidate and are understandably disappointed in the outcome of this race. But I have no patience for the Hillary supporters who make disingenuous and often totally false claims about her chances of winning, "threaten" to vote for McCain or stay home in November if they don't get their way, and repeatedly insist that Obama can't win in the GE despite all evidence to the contrary.
You folks are not obliged to support or vote for Obama in the fall, but please spare us the idle threats and juvenile temper tantrums. Nobody really gives a shit who you vote for.