Letters to the Editor
-
Careful Tim
This could possibly be treated as a slight against Hillary and you don't want Rebecca Traister stomping over to your office and criticizing your hair, now do you?
-
I don't blame them.
The Clintons have repeatedly been piled-on, accused of all manner of skullduggery, while Obama is painted as an angel from heaven, complete with halo and wings. Hillary is painted as "old guard" and "corporate" and "yesterday," while no mention is made of the fact that Obama's senate record and ties to lobbyists is almost identical to Hillary's. Hillary is slammed at every turn, sneered at at every opportunity, yet people swoon at Obama, finding him the only man since Jesus to live free of sin. It must be terribly frustrating when they are so close to the same.
Despite the "bad" press they'll take for this, I think it's a good move, and maybe Clinton should have even done this earlier. It's ironic that she didn't want to cross that line before, because she's already been painted with the slime brush. Seems to me that if you have done the time, you might as well do the crime.
That said, I think I'll probably vote for Obama, but I'm tempted to cast a sympathy vote for Clinton, instead.
-
And another thing.
Bill Clinton is right. It's an Obama fairy tale, created by the press, and one that Obama's camp is thrilled to own, just as Hillary was thrilled to own the "inevitability" fairy tale created by the press for her.
But watch out, Barack! The press has a way of building you up only to rub their hands in glee at the prospect of taking you down.
-
He's become the fat Elvis
Watching Bill Clinton now is like watching Elvis shortly before the end. There is that odd mixture of horror and amusement.
-
To be fair to Clinton
Pointing to Obama's voting record is not "negative" the same way calling her the Senator from Punjav is negative. That's fair game and he should defend his vote for the awful energy bill. And if it is true that Obama broke campaign finance laws, that would be a fair thing to raise.
In fact, I wish the media did focus on this stuff. All three of the candidates have dubious, pro-corporate Senate votes that they shy away from as they all embrace Edwards fight against big money. Even Edwards, who has now the luxury of being out of the Senate, has to apologize for his Senate voting record (and not just the war vote). Yet in our media environment, baseless character attacks are treated the same as legitimate character attacks -- and even legitimate policy critiques. WTF?
Even in a race for class president, I'd expect the candidates to distinguish their goals and level criticisms against their opponents where appropriate.
Edwards is right that we can't fix anything as long as corporations have more democratic power than voters. All of these candidates have played in the corporate sandbox. Even if it demoralizes the base, the media has a responsibility to report on who these candidates are likely to be as president. The people have a right to know.
Horse race coverage that obscures what their presidencies are likely to accomplish serves no one. This is especially true in that the coverage suggests huge differences when there are actually few.
Will any of them cut defense spending -- something that must be done to balance the budget and pay for any social programming? (Right now our $700 billion/yr war/defense spending takes up all the money actually available for discretionary spending.) Will any of the candidates end the war on drugs as we know it? (We have over 2 million people in jail and are ruining otherwise salvageable lives -- at huge cost to the economy.) Will any of the candidates stop the U.S.'s blind support for a right-wing Israeli government, that is committing war crimes in Gaza as I type? Will any of them enact a single payer healthcare system? Will any of them return to a real progressive tax system? Will any of them tax capital gains at regular income levels? Will any of them break up media monopolies? These are real questions, yet I doubt we have any viable candidates of either party that will do these things, despite all of these actions having support from at least 40 percent of the public.
-
Tim falls into the same trap
"Obama was giving a speech opposing the war when Hillary Clinton was voting to authorise it."
What he fails to mention was that Obama was a state senator at the time in Illinois with about as much power to affect the Iraq war as my dog. And Clinton was in the Senate, working with a Republican dominated government, authorising force that had already happened.
So Obama gets credit for saying a lot and doing nothing, and Hillary gets slammed for making the pragmatic decision and not picking a fight she couldn't win.
It's all a media fairy tale. Ooh America has it's first black president, we're not racist anymore, hooray! And we can target that bitch Hillary without being seen as bigoted (coz we support the black guy) double hooray!
Absolutely revolting. If Hillary gets shafted I'm done with this lying hypocritical sham of a democratic party once and for all.
-
@ firenze419
Please tell me what Clinton would do that Obama wouldn't. I can't tell these two apart on policy (perhaps other than minor, minor shades).
The problem with horse race coverage is that people get invested in these candidates like they're members of the family -- or their team, like the Redskins. Get a grip as citizens! These people are different by shades. None of them are offering a real change -- at least not yet.
I can see someone giving up on the party because it can't elect a candidate who really cares about average folks, but ditching it because your personality gets voted off the island is inexcusable.
Again, anyone, tell me how Clinton and Obama vary dramatically on actual issues. It's harder than you think, not least because even the stands that they do take are ambiguous.
-
the same ol bs
Obama is playing possum here,
"" But he suggested in the same interview that his uncertainty stemmed from the fact that he wasn't "privy to the Senate intelligence reports" that sitting senators saw," and he added: "What I know is that, from my vantage point, the case was not made."""
So we are to blame Hillary for not knowing that Bush had cooked the evidence? Being privy to the intelligence reports was probably a handicap to making a sound decision.