Letters to the Editor
-
@ oracle
I would love to know why you think this is Bill Clinton's way of running for a third term? Did you think that George W. Bush was running in 2000 for his father's second term and that George Herbert Walker Bush has now effectively served three terms?
If Hillary Clinton were Bill Clinton's daughter or son would you still think that Bill Clinton would necessarily be the one holding all the power?
If Senator Clinton takes the oath of office, do you think she will have no power of her own by virtue of actually being President of the United States? Even were Bill to harbor certain dreams of renewed power, why do you imagine she will just turn over the reins to him? I don't know an intelligent post-menopausal woman who lets her husband call all the shots and I live in the South. Once we get past all that estrogen bonding crap, we tend to do it our way.
-
And Clinton is supposed to be the racist
Methinks that Obama strategy has now boiled down to - ``Clinton is a racist''
-
Can someone please...
...get Hillary to stop posting here as "anonymous"? It's just embarrassing.
-
Who's a racist?
Clinton is not a racist. She has '35 years of experience' (as she reminds us ad absurdum) to prove she's not a racist. Obama is not a racist. He has been a successful community organizer with years of experience bringing disparate factions together. John Edwards is not a racist. He has spent his professional career as a lawyer bringing justice to the victims of avaricious abuse by the insurance industry. This is so not an issue. It is manufactured by a media that has much to gain from controversy. If anyone is a racist it's Tim Russett, Hanritty, O'Reilly, Linbaugh, and, yes, even Salon, and all the rest, who take quotes out of context, exploit statements, and just make shit up in order to pursue their agenda of making it seem like these people harbor racist leanings. Point of fact, the GOP loves it. Point of fact, the GOP ARE racists. Remember Florida 2000, remember Ohio 2004. We should not lose track of that fact and we should stop second guessing any of these three DemocratIC candidates. Remember who the real enemy is and stop carving and slicing. Any one of these three candidates are better than what the alternative might be. Let's not lose sight of that. Keep your eyes on the prize!
-
To set the record straight...
Since Clinton has been purposefully misconstruing Obama's recent remarks on Reagan all day...
...it might help to remember that Clinton herself deemed Reagan "one of her favorite presidents."
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
-
@mcsnee
Actually, jebldmm is right.
It was Obama's CAMPAIGN that put out the talking points memo listing statements taken out of context and twisted to seem "racist". Obama admitted at the debate "truce" that his people may have been "overzealous". The time to say something about this was when it happened, not weeks later after the lies had time to take root.
He is directly responsible for the race baiting and it was calculated and deliberate. He offered his "truce" after he got what he wanted. The media pretty much gives him a pass.
I have never really liked Obama and never believed his rhetoric about "inclusion" and "hope." He has also put a wedge between the baby boomers and young people, quite deliberately. You can see this in the comments by some young people telling the geezers to get out of the way. One thing people might think about is why many of Obama's supporters are so nasty. This is the new direction he is supposed to be leading us into?
Like many people, I am liking Obama less and less.
-
Portia56
It may have been Obama's people who put the memo on the talking points, but you forget that Clinton spent an hour on sunday saying that Obama's position on the war in iraq is a fairy tale because:
1. He didn't mention it on the senate floor until 18 months after he gave the speech in 2002. (Never mind that he wasn't elected to the U.S. Senate until 2004).
2. She says so.
She does not mention that he proposed a bill called the Iraq De-Escalation Bill in 2007 which would have had all combat troops out of Iraq by April of 2008. She doesn't mention that he has consistently all along stated his position on the war--he didn't change positions when the political winds blew differently. He has a consistent stand, so she feels she must attack him, even though her attacks make no sense in comparison with her own record. If the war had been a success, Clinton would be berating Obama for his pitiful anti-war position.
You know, I am a woman and would love to elect a woman. However, my reasoning works like this:
1. Humanitarian Relief to Africa (December 2006)
2. Coburn-Obama Bill--Government published data base of all tax dollars--where they go.
3. Honest and Open Government (most sweeping legislative reform since Watergate)passed in 2007
4. Obama-Lugar expansion of the treaty to get rid of stockpiles of weapons around the world to help decrease violence through random terror.
5. S-chip. He sponsored the expanded version that Bush vetoed.
6. Climate change bill to cut greenhouse emissions by 2/3 by the year 2050 cosponsored with John McCain.
I am going to elect the person not with a longer resume, but with a more solid resume. I'm going to elect the person who has put their dreams into action--even into law--in the U.S. congress. And if you have at least 6 bills that show similar courage on clinton's part, I am willing to consider them. I know she supported s-chip, but I want a senator who cares about other issues as well. Obama sponsored or co sponsored over 400 bills in the 109th congress alone--including schip.
Match clinton's record with what I've mentioned so far here, if you can.
I'm tired of Clinton's supporters saying "Obama isn't qualified" and leaving it at that. Talk about his record, belittling it is getting old. Name the qualification other than being a woman or being experienced by virtue of being married to a president that Clinton has that Obama does not?
Complete silence, again? That's what I expected.