Letters to the Editor
-
sO YOU WON'T VOTE FOR HIM BECAUSE HE THINKS WHEN HE SPEAKS?
yEP YOUR A republcian all right. :)
Better to memorize talking points like the gop and say them endlessly? hahahahahah
you show yoru face gop. Nobody fears the gop anymore. they are done for thirty years. Only republicans with their heads in the sand think the gop has teh snowballyist chance in hell. They are done for 30 years. Fear the nazi's not. they are done.
Where else do you get rewarded the worse you do? Kerry is clinton. gore is clinton. you want to side with a winner leah? Side with obama. He already won the general, you just don't know it yet
-
Karen
Crushing losses? In Republican caucus states like Utah and Kansas?
Utah and Kansas were actually on Super Tuesday. The states I'm talking about include Washington, Maine, Maryland, Virginia, and Wisconsin - all blue or swing states that Obama could carry in the fall. Obama beat her in all of them by double-digits, effectively ending this face.
Hillary is viable until somebody reaches enough delegates to secure the nomination.
That should happen in early June. I hope Hillary is willing to concede then.
And yes, the media do have it in for Hillary.
Obama has his share of racism to compete with, too. Whining about the refs never changed a thing.
-
october271986
Hillary has the highest negative poll rating. She is consistently voted the least trustworthy.
-
we can pray
" I am hoping that this time around, the politics of division will be soundly routed.
-- madamfauntleroy "
that's what this fight is all about. Out with the old (whcih we know doesn't work), in with the new. It's the american way. The treasonous sabotuers how hate americans freedom and democracy are not americans. Just fascists living here. :)
-
wow. tone deaf
"Clinton compares the Florida and Michigan fight to civil rights movement"
""This work to extend the franchise to all of our citizens is a core mission of the modern Democratic party," she said. "From signing the Voting Rights Act and fighting racial discrimination at the ballot box to lowering the voting age so those old enough to fight and die in war would have the right to choose their commander in chief, to fighting for multi-lingual ballots so you can make your voice heard no matter what language you speak.""
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/Clinton_compares_the_Florida_and_Michigan_fight_to_civil_rights_movement.html
Ballsy. not to bright. But ballsy
-
Lezah2
He didn't mispeak there. He actually said what he meant, because the GOP standard operating procedure of not talking to people has failed.
It failed because it was a stupid idea. America is not the boss of the world, and it is fast becoming a pariah because America acts like it can boss the rest of the world around. It pisses off your allies, as well as your enemies.
Obama's suggested approach is not talking at the rest of the world, it is talking to it. That is one of the primary reasons why Hillary's foreign policy is actually the inferior of the two.
America needs to talk in order to figure out what is going on, and setting preconditions to that talk hurts America, not America's enemies. Once America has got some distance between itself and the Iraq debacle, maybe then America will be able to talk about preconditions to talks. Right now, it doesn't have the moral authority.
-
so much for the clinton propoganda line
"POLL: Obama leads McCain in November match...
Senior Advisors: Obama juggernaut will crush John McCain... "
-
Lezah2
thank-you for writing back and doing so politely. We need more of that between Obama and Clinton supporters.
I feel the same way that you do--except about Obama. I feel that Clinton would be less able to accomplish these things because sometimes when I saw her in the debates she seemed glib, but not as wise as I wish she was. I wish that she could admit where she has made mistakes (she seems reluctant to) and I was alarmed by her discussion of "obliterating" Iran. That made headlines all over the world. I wish she had thought harder before she used that word which sounded glib. To me a leader is not just a fighter but a diplomat. I want peace. I really want peace. And if Clinton had won, as frustrated as I at times felt toward her, I would accept her (I still will if she wins and follows the Democratic Party's rules...which still could happen.)
At the end of the day though we can only have what options are available to us. If Obama wins the nomination, watch Senator Obama and Senator McCain discuss issues before you decide which is more knowledgable or wise. Saying "um" sometimes means that you are thinking while you answer, which can be a good thing.
And for the record, I have no problem with anyone supporting Clinton because they think she will make a better leader than Senator Obama. But please think before you decide that McCain would also make a better leader.
Just give it thought, is all I ask.
peace!
-
Clinton and the media
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/20/AR2008052001567.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
Hillary Clinton isn't going to be elected the first female president -- not this year, anyway. The reasons for this outcome have gratifyingly little to do with her gender. It may not seem that way right now to Clinton supporters seething over her treatment, but the 2008 campaign has propelled the country significantly closer to the moment when a woman takes the oath of office.
-
It's Not Obama's Fault
Saw the post re: Obama's Daughters and had to respond because I see lots of posts how it's Obama's fault for taking the nomination away from Clinton, how he needs to wait his turn, etc. There's a presumption that if Obama hadn't run Clinton would have been the nominee. There were other candidates in the race and it's hard to say what would have happened. Clinton and her staff admittedly made alot of mistakes up to Super Tuesday. And who can say they wouldn't have made more? It's Clinton's mismanaged campaign that gives pause to many as to how effective she'd be as President - where choice of staff is crucial. Yes there's been harsh criticism of Clinton - but despite comments to the contrary Obama has also come under the same since he's been the frontrunner. There are lots of issues with the Clintons that have gone under the radar because she hasn't been the frontrunner these last few months. Senator Clinton has achieved alot whether she wins or not -- but her success or failure can be blamed on her and the choices she made -no one else. As for Obama appointing Clinton to the Supreme Court - - this isn't about making Hillary or her supporters happy. It's about what's right for the country. Supreme Court justices are appointed only after one dies or steps down. Not exactly something you can bet on. Why does Hillary need to be appeased if she loses? She lost - she's "vetted" and so I'm sure she understands that. If you want to see how to act graceful after losing look at Ted Kennedy and all he accomplished for his party and country despite losing the nomination in 1980. I'm proud of both candidates for breaking barriers during this campaign and hope that candidates and voters will be able to put aside self interests and support whomever the candidate is because it's got to better than the alternative.