Letters to the Editor
-
rufus11
I am struggling with the Clinton's race baiting and the notion that somehow they are not racists. I am trying to understand the distinction. Then it dawns on me that the Clintons have been life long opportunists (aren't all politicians?) and have used race both negatively and positively. Just like the GOP, the Clintons are adept at tapping into people's prejudices. I am hoping that this time around, the politics of division will be soundly routed.
-
Reality Check
Re: "Suggests the media has it in for Hillary, as if Obama would still be considered a viable candidate after 11 straight crushing losses and an insurmountable shortfall in delegates? You betcha."
Crushing losses? In Republican caucus states like Utah and Kansas? Hillary is viable until somebody reaches enough delegates to secure the nomination.
And yes, the media do have it in for Hillary. You don't characterize a candidate as a "bitch" (Christopher Hitches on Tim Russert), or as somebody who looks like your first wife standing outside of a probate court (Mike Barnicle, MSNBC), or as somebody who makes you involuntarily cross your legs (Tucker Carlson, MSNBC), or say that a candidate is only a Senator not because she won two statewide elections, but because her husband messed around (Chris Matthews MSNBC), or compare her to the Glen Close character in Fatal Attraction (Andrew Sulllivan, The Atlantic), or hope that somebody will tell her it's over--take her into a room, and only he comes out (Keith Olbermann, MSNBC),or say that she is pimping out
her adult daughter (David Schuster, MSNBC), or say that white women, her largest base of support, are "the problem" (Bill Kristol, Fox News), or create a "Hillary nutcracker" and sell it in airports (MSNBC store, Reagan National Airport), or say in reference to Hillary that it's OK to call somebody a white bitch (Alex Castellanos, CNN--last night!), or demand that she drop out every day since New Hampshire (all channels), unless you want that candidate to lose.
This is NOT poltical analysis. It's an attempt to determine the outcome of an election.
-
just go away
clinton just keeps on going and going to point of inhuman tolerance . why is she doing it? lots of people are asking this. well i just got a mailing from the democratic party to give any small amount to it. why should i when they cannot control the clintons here who are just running over all the rules, setting their own agendas that will now go till who knows what. why is it so important to be so kind to this couple. they are losers and they should leave. i will refrain from giving money to the party until they clean up their act as a party and act as a party and not be twisted around by silly arguments by the clintons and their surrogates. the clintons have done great harm to the femininsts and i for one cannot forgive them for that. silly, silly people.
-
Lezah2
If Hillary cannot even win this primary election by the rules as they were set out, if she can't even come into the primary with a strategy for how to handle the rules, how well is she going to do against a candidate that will campaign against her without fear of how this will hurt her party in the general?
The rightwing has led to America's infrastructure crumbling, America being stuck in two wars with a third one possibly looming in Iran, the American savings rate going negative, America's deficits hitting levels last seen during World War Two, America's debt coming perilously close to the point where the interest will not be payable, America's human rights record get flushed down the toilet, and America's pets being poisoned by the guys you owe a fair amount of that money to.
And you are telling us that we leftwingers need to go towards the rightwing in order to win. Yeah. Right.
-
Idea
Delores, I agree with a lot (maybe all) of the things you've listed. The problem is that Senator Obama does not seem to be able to discuss these things without putting his foot in his mouth. I watched every debate. He was horrible. It was as if he didn't know much about the issues at all. Maybe they're Ted Kennedy's issues. I don't even think it's a bad idea to talk to countries that we don't trust. I just think he misspoke when he said HE would talk to them without preconditions. Presidents have other people who set up meetings and discuss things like that. He will have people working for him. If he had said, "My administration will consider talking to those countries without preconditions," he would not have been criticized so much. He just seems either terribly naive or terribly unware of the real world. HE cannot do everything and it's obvious he has never been in charge of any group. He might have been at least the chair of something if he had held hearings by the committee that he chairs in the Senate, which he never has. He just does not evoke confidence and I'm one of millions who feel that way. Gotta go...
-
One last thought for Delores
I believe that Hillary Clinton would do all the things that you've noted that Senator Obama is for and I believe she would be fully knowledgable of the issues and she would work untiringly to get them accomplished. I don't believe Senator Obama would be able to do that. My opinion, I know, but that's the feeling of many.
-
Lezah2 (Agreeing with Dolores Flower)
That Obama occasionally "umms" and "uhhs" seems like an odd reason not to vote for him. It also seems an odd reason to assume that the rest of the country won't vote for him. The guy not only went to Harvard without wealthy family connections, he also made Law Review.
Issues! Health care plan, the War, diplomacy, energy policy, gas taxes, Education. Where is the discussion of these?
At the end of the day, I'd like my President to be honorable and courageous and smart (by recommending good policies) more than I'd like him to enunciate clearly.
Hillary has the last bit - certainly articulate and smart. She is lacking on the honorable and courageous part, unless there is something in it for her.