Letters to the Editor
-
Shocked!
I think that given the what is at stake, every politician will say anything they think will help them get elected.
Also given the way the MSM reports discrepancies between truth and lies, it is also SAFE to lie your ass off.
-
grave error
on HRC's part.
Especially in South Carolina.
Obama won that round. (But I think he lost the whole bankruptcy bill vote squabble to Edwards: "Wait. You voted against it because you thought the limit was too *high*? There's *no* limit now!" And Obama started talking math, making it sound like he was insenced about a 1% fee hike.)
I was so disappointed in how HRC and Obama attacked each other (I have no problem with candidates distinguishing themselves from the pack, but I felt that the nasty tone hurt the Party, which will hurt the Nominee, whoever s/he turns out to be). She looked bitchy, and and some costly mistakes, but Obama looked prissy, which tarnished his aura sonewhat.
Twas Edwards who looked rational and collected (though I missed the last exchange about lobbyists with HRC, so he might have jumped in the puddle too).
In the meantime, the Republicans can hold arm-wrestling matches and spitting contests (who will keep our troops in Iraq longer? Who will be most like Jack Bauer? Who will torture more enemy combatants?) and come out looking like a Band of Brothers.
-
Try this quote on for size
"I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
OK, so Obama did not specifically say that the Reagan had good ideas, but this clealy implies it. Dynamism and entrpreneurship? If he really thought Reagan's ideas were bad, why would he not have said it? Reagan's policies were disastrous and in direct opposition to what the Democratic Party stands for. To bring these policies up in a positive context and not say that you think they were wrong, that they did great damage to our country is bizarre. Obama deserved to be severely criticized for his statements. The deification of Reagan and his policies by the right wing spin machine should not be aided by any Democrat, explicitly or implicitly.
-
@ BernieO
I would say that maybe it's because Obama is trying to appeal to everyone instead of just democrats. The thing is, as Obama demonstrated, you can look at what happened during the Regan years and evaluate honestly what happened without making a judgment call as to whether it was good or bad.
I think he's trying to build an 'elecatability' thing.
-
It might not have been good politics for Obama to say what he did, but I'm glad he said it.
The Republican Party has been the party of ideas. Horrible, horrible ideas. Gingrich's "Contract With America" may has well have been a "Contract On America." You may not like some of the ideas (I don't) but it's definitely a big idea to build more prisons and cut back on social programs that could keep people out of prison to begin with.
Fiscal responsibility was a good Republican idea that was enacted best by Democratic president Bill Clinton.
Another big Republican idea: "strengthening the family" by banning gay marriage.
And what, pray tell, have been the Democratic big ideas? Okay, healthcare reform. Name two more. Democrats have been playing defense and legislating like Republicans-lite. Obama's right. Democrats need to start being the party of big ideas. Big, good ideas. The question is: will Obama find consensus issues around which to build big ideas or will he merely continue the Democratic trend of caving on big issues into pseudo-consensus?
-
I'm beginning to dislike the Clintons.
I always thought Slick Willy gave the neocons the white house by handing them their we are holier than tho because your zipper's down angle naughty-boy persona that allowed Bushit to walk into his "decider" role. Christ, Clinton couldn't even deliver Arkansas to Gore. (Never mind Gore couldn't even deliver Georgia to himself). Now he wants his wife to be president and she and he are willing to use the low-life tactics once incessantly hurled at them to achieve it. The GOP were relentless on those two for eight years. It may have hardened their skins allowing them to survive, but they also learned how to play lowball too and we're seeing this beginning to surface in waves and was evident in her attacks at Obama last night. Wait till they pull-out the negative TV adds. Poor Obama. he'll be dragged into the morass the Clintons have grown accustomed to wallowing in. I know it wasn't Hillary who pulled Bill's zipper down, but she sure is still angry over it, that's for sure.
If you out there want at least four more years of gridlock, hate, and fear mongering, with a pitched re-fight of the 90's, Hillary is your "candidate". It's pretty obvious why the Clinton's want the W.H. back. they want to get even. The only one's who will boinked this time will be us.
The GOP will be stinkers even if Obama or Edwards (my choice) gets the nod. They'll be demons if Clinton gets it. I had to turn-off the democratic debate last night because I saw Hillary's potential nastiness surface. She and Bill are still fighting the wars of the 90's. I for one have had a belly-full of that crap. It's time for a complete change and the Clinton's are not the ones to facilitate it.
When they had their chance, they ended up, in large part due to the sexual antics of Bill but also the distaste Hillary left in our collective political mouths (pardon the reference to Bill) via the distain the GOP grew for her personality. These two gave the GOP a platform to run on and gave to us Bush and his neocon brand a full eight years of gridlock, Cheney, Rove, sissy-pants Democrats, preemptive war and a tanking of the economy.
I for one really just want to move beyond that morass.If Bill Clinton was not in the picture, neither would Hillary.I wish that they would both just go away and let a new generation change this thing to the better.