Letters to the Editor
-
Leftist terrorist organizations
Someone said there weren't any leftist terrorist acts. At risk of revealing my age, I recall differently....
From Wikpedia:
Originally, the Weathermen were part of the Revolutionary Youth Movement within the Students for a Democratic Society. When they split — first from the RYM's Maoists and then from SDS itself — they distinguished themselves from other self-proclaimed revolutionary groups by claiming that there was no time to build a vanguard party and that revolutionary war against the United States and the capitalist system should begin immediately. To that end, they carried out a campaign of bombings, jailbreaks, and riots.
See also: "Symbionese Liberation Army"
-
Clinton populi
Hey, if the GOPers want to run against Bill, let me paraphrase his successor: bring it on! Have they forgotten the conventional wisdom--at the time--that had Bill taken a more active role in campaigning for Gore, it is highly likely Bush wouldn't have become president in the first place?
-
What difference will it make?
Would that the Republican strategy to get votes was based on logic. It has always been based on hyperbole, dis-information and down right lies repeated to their base until that base believes them. There is some hope that the current fight they've picked with Clinton, thankfully bringing him into the limelight with his dukes up and his gloves packed with the brass knuckles of truth and historical record, is winning over the independent voters in droves. However, we've seen the power of the Right use the media, the forum of the President and the Congress to bulldoze the truth with a constant flood of disinformation until even the undecided voters begin to doubt up is down and black is white. Let's rejoice that they've pulled a tiger by the tail, but let's not for one second underestimate the power of this administration. We each have to do our part to take back the country: call people, volunteer, write letters, complain to the media about misrepresentations and generally TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR A WIN IN NOVEMBER.
-
The public may like Clinton but the whole of the media still can't seem to give him any respect.
I'm still puzzling about non-conservative blogs and media voices characterizing Clinton in the Wallace interview as shockingly angry. I watched it and yes he was angry but the tone of it was hardly shocking, particularly when compared to what you hear and see daily on cable news from pundits, pols and journalists. Bush seems so very petulant, angry and increasingly unglued in front of the press too. I don't see him being characterized as full of "rage."
Just curious that so many on the left seemed to buy into the Drudge "purple-faced rage" spin. I saw an articulate, intelligent LEADER capabale of a solid, logical debate even when angered and I really thought I'd see those on the left rally behind it more.
-
Clintons v Bush
While i agree with the main thrust of this argument, one thing became apparent to me in all this.
President Hillary Clinton would have to spend a disproportionate amount of time defending her "husband's" policies (her word, not mine).
Is it just me, or is there a problem?
To me it sounds like Hillary needed to defend her husband, not the previous administration or someother neatly constructed euphemism.
If I were looking for a reason to NOT vote for Hillary this would be it. There is so much that is personally invested btwn the two - and the issues facing the country will undoubtedly run into what happened during 1992-2000. If we take this case as an example, we have Hillary defending her husbands' pursuit of OBL. We have Republicans talking about distractions of Monica Lewinsky...the two are intertwined in the collective consciousness of the country. So next, we'll have Hillary needing to say something like: When my husband was president the scandal surrounding Monica did not interfere with his ability to be Pres or Cmdr in Chief.
This episode has energized me and I am glad to see Pres Clinton is leading the charge...but it has also created this very sticky situtation for Hillary that could damage her status as a pres candidate.
-
Picking a fight
Nothing could be better for Democrats than Republicans picking a fight with Bill Clinton. Whether the Right acknowledges it, the vast majority of Americans supported Bill Clinton and his policies. As my husband said this morning, "I liked Bill Clinton, I liked Al Gore ... the problem with Democrats today is that while I'll vote for them because Republicans have been a disaster, I don't like any of them." I was hard pressed to provide an example of a prominant Democrat whom he should like. We all liked Bill Clinton (notwithstanding his sexual exploits) ... we need to find another Democratic leader whom we can all like again
-
It's all about the base
If midterm elections are all about motivating your base to get out and vote, then bringing Clinton into the spotlight and getting him to raise his voice and point his finger makes sense as a GOP strategy. Although the percentage of people who dislike him (measured nationally) is relatively small, they're key in many districts. The real question is whether the number of people Clinton brings to the polls to vote for Democratic candidates is larger than the number that he brings out to vote against Democrats.
The dislike of Clinton is a powerful, if irrational, force. Indeed, I've remarked to friends that the only good thing about the Bush administration for me, as a Democrat, is that it has given me a chance to feel as strongly negative about a president as the Clinton-haters did from 1992-2000. I don't like the feeling, but I can't deny it; I would like to think that the Clinton-haters, in the end, feel the same way.
-
Turning out the base
I think it's all about the Republicans desperately needing to turn out their base in November. Their base still loathes Clinton. As you astutely observed below, the Democrats--particularly in their shameless, spineless acquiesence to the torture/detainment bill--seem bent on suppressing their turnout. Maybe if they could get Clinton talking about the immorality of torture...
-
SALON versus SALON
It's a good thing that "salon.com" writers aren't all the same.
For instance, go see
http://www.salon.com/ent/col/fix/2006/09/25/mon/index.html
The wrath of Clinton: Calling the move a "conservative hit job" and saying that Wallace was just "doing Fox's bidding" -- plus wagging his finger in Wallace's face -- Clinton in his rage is terrifying to behold. -- Scott Lamb
It's a good thing that Glenn Greenwald posted a serious rejoinder to the silliness posted by Scott Lamb.