Letters to the Editor
-
I don't get it
What did this ad have to do with race? Because it was on a Spanish language station? Or did they assume "our people" meant Hispanics. My impression is that when labor unions talk about "our people" they are referring to the workers.
-
Trusted
Can Obama be trusted to run. I can't see where he is playing fairly. Only when it suits him to do so.
-
In all fairness...
Some discussion of Clinton's false social security mailer and false Yucca Mountain remarks might be in order too.
-
Can we forget both of them?
We need leadership, not feel good issues. One's female, the other black. So what? They have both exposed themselves as petty manipulators who are playing at racism and sexism rather than their professional history (neither have much, admittedly. Obama hasn't fucked up quite as much.)
Can we PLEASE dump these two assholes and try to elect a progressive leader? Please?
-
exhausted
I am huge Salon fan, have had a subscription for years, and deeply appreciate what you do. I must say, however, this post in Warroom really aggravated me. I am a news junkie, I have been watching CNN and MSNBC pretty steadily for the past three days... and I have seen story after story about Hillary Clinton going negative about Obama's experience, about his "not being ready for the presidency," and, mostly, railing at him about telling the truth about his weakness. Fine.
But this warroom post, with the heading "truce? forget it" is all about the ad run by a group endorsing Obama (not by him or by his campaign)... as though, somehow, he was the first in three days to say something negative. I don't feel it's an accurate picture.
However, I also think, honestly, that the "negative" fight is a ridiculous one... occasionally supporters (and candidates) on all sides have moments of negativity. But no one on the Democratic side is swift-boating someone else, no one is sending out fliers like the ones against McCain.
So let's back off the "you're dirtier than I am" arguments. It doesn't help, it merely exhausts.
-
Bill Clinton
Wasn't exactly plying nice, himself. This ad from Obama is pretty mild especially since its in large part in answer to more of the Clintons' bs.
-
horserace bs
First off, to anonymous: "Can Obama be trusted to run. I can't see where he is playing fairly. Only when it suits him to do so."
You can just as easily substitute Clinton's name in there and it would be equally as valid a comment. So let's cool it on the sniping, shall we?
Secondly, related to the comment that Edwards has hardly come to Clinton's defense: Edwards needs Clinton out of the race to have much of a chance at the nomination, duh.
Finally, as an Edwards supporter it pains me to observe this: an unfortunate, and all-too-likely outcome of Edwards' candidacy is that he's probably taking more votes from Obama than Clinton, and thus is probably ensuring that Clinton eventually gets the Democratic nomination.
-
Obama at it again
Obama has a way of letting his surrogates attack and then acting like he has nothing to do with it. I think the target audience of these ads will see this for what it is.
What concerns me more is where the caucuses are taking place. I hope union members voting in those casinos are allowed to vote for the candidates of their choice. Would you feel confident voting in front of all your co-workers for a candidate you know management doesn't support? I wouldn't.
-
Bullshit may stink but it makes the grass grow
Did Obama endorse the ad? Was he seen saying 'I am Barack Obama and I support this ad?' If not, how is he even associated with this? Aren't supporters of a given candidate (union or otherwise)allowed to express their opinions? No one griped very loudly when John Kerry was crucified by the 'Swift Boat Vets.' And that was out and out slander. And what about 'John McCain's love child?' This is much ado about nothing designed to derail Obama's mo. It was Big Bill Clinton, after all, who started this mess by attempting to suggest that disenfranchising working people in Vegas was a good thing. But I still like Edwards.
-
@swilldog re Obama/Edwards vote
Yep, that's about my analysis, too. Edwards and Obama may well be splitting the same base of voters, saddling us with Her Imperial Majesty as a candidate come the general election.
Which bodes ill for the Democratic Party, in my opinion, as the heretofore divided and demoralized Republican base is galvanized to come out in droves to vote ABH (Anybody But Hillary).
-
The "truce."
Tim, the so-called "truce" that they declared at the debate had to do with the racial issue. There was never any truce with regard to anything else. Nobody ever said it was going to be lovey-dovey from here on. It's war and politics as usual, but at least they have toned down on the racial angle. Mr. Johnson even apologized to Obama about his remarks.
The racial issue keeps simmering of course, and if Obama gets the nod, it will swell to tsunami proportions on the GOP side. But I think both Billary and Obama have learned that playing the race card is counter-productive for everybody and would weaken the Democrats in November.
By the way, I refer to "Billary" because I do not for a minute believe that Bill Clinton is just a "surrogate." In my heart of hearts, I believe he is running for third term with Hillary as the real surrogate. As we know, presidents are legally limited to two terms, and this is a huge, huge, loophole.
-
Anti-Obama?
For all of you who question the appropriatness of this story in War Room, please check historical "War Room" efforts. You will see post after negative post about Clinton -- a particularly nauseating number regarding comments by Clinton supporter Johnson.
-
"Our people"
Full disclosure: I'm an Obama supporter.
If this ad had been in English, there would be no question that it's about union members, not some racial group. Because it's in Spanish, Salon and the Clinton camp immediately assume there must be a racial component.
It certainly sounds like there's some form of racism at work here somewhere. I wonder where it could be...?