Letters to the Editor
-
Just shut up, already
All this spinning is a giant turn-off.
If Bill Clinton would just shut up with all the political rhetoric and scolding the press and predicting elections and instead talk about anything substantive, he might help his wife. As it is, listening to them play good cop, bad cop just reminds me of how painfully out of touch the Clinton administration was with the hopes and dreams of ordinary people and so how blatantly it was all about them and their little psychodramas. More and more, his ego is getting into it and he's the one running for another shot at being, sort of, President.
I hope Obama -- or God forbid, Edwards -- doesn't jump into this quicksand with them. They're in a self-destructive spin. Hillary is a good prospect for president, but Billary -- not so sure about that combo!
-
Don't believe the hype
Immediately after the debate the Clintons started signaling their concession of South Carolina. It was quite masterful in fact. The next day every news outlet reported (including Salon) - Hillary Clinton is leaving South Carolina to Bill and Chelsea! Of course they see the writing on the wall, and instead of graciously accepting a defeat in a hard fought battleground, the Clintons would rather paint the picture that they didn't really try that hard in the event of a loss.
Well I don't buy it. All of the candidates have pandered for the "black vote" in SC with vigor. I honestly think that the Clintons are shocked that their "black street cred" is not enough. I expect, that if she loses, she will attribute it to blacks voting for the black candidate. Its not that simple. Last time around, SC blacks didn't catapult Al Sharpton to the nomination. The Clintons want to recast a loss as "she didn't have a chance." We all know that's not true. The Clintons have the backing of the SC democratic establishment. It will be interesting to see how the mainstream media will spin a Clinton loss that isn't insulting and demeaning to black and white SC voters.
-
Kind of a slap in the face isn't it?
"As far as I can tell, neither Sen. Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender -- that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here." - Bill Clinton
So basically Bill is saying that black folks are only voting for Obama because he's black. And then I infer that what is implying is that it doesn't really matter who black folks vote for anyway since they are going to vote for whichever democrat runs.
The first implication, that black people are only voting for Obama because he is black, is insulting. Turning that on its head, I doubt Hillary would be so pleased if Obama came out and said the only thing Hillary had going for her in N.H. was her ovaries.
The second implication, admittedly inferred by myself - a Bill Clinton fan - reflects a disregard for a substantial voting block of the democratic party. I think that the Clinton's make these comments at their own risk. The alternative to not voting democrat isn't just voting republican, it's also staying home and not voting at all.
-
sorry everyone
for the passive voice and atrocious grammar. it's been a long day.
"... *were* her ovaries."
*Clintons* not Clinton's.
"implication inferred by me?" ugh, terrible
-
If you don't want to read about the polls, don't read about them
Get over it. For the rest of us, following polling data is an interesting activity. Think about sports fans who read about a particular match-up before game day - dismissing such interest as 'irrelevant to who will actually win' is a bit joyless.
That being said, I am much more interested in polling of the various D-R match-ups than in dem-dem polling. The national D-R polling is what shows Edwards and Obama the clear winners, especially against McCain. If you have no interest in such things, you have no sense of political strategy. I want the strongest democratic candidate against the most likely republican one (McCain), so such polls help me make my decision.
-
McCain + Condi versus Hillary + Barack?
Who picks first for Vice President, Republicans or Democrats? If the Republicans pick first, and they do NOT pick Condi Rice, then either top Dem (Hillary or Barack) should pick Edwards for VP.
However, if the Dems go first, we need a Hillary + Barack ticket, in either order. Condi would give the Repubs a 1st Afr.-Am. + 1st Woman, Two Mints in One! The Dems need both Hillary and Barack to equal that.
-
Why Bill has spent so much time in SC?
This is essentially to ensure, in my opinion, that Hillary got 2 crucial days
off to travel other parts of USA. The media narrative/Obama's campaign
lumping of Bill and Hillary together means that even if Hillary is not in SC,
but Bill is will ensure that SC voters do not feel slighted.
-
@philly peef
Try explaining that one to Ron Paul.
"Flesh chicken" storm in 10, 9, 8...
-
"McCain + Condi"
Crazy and Vapid. Sounds oddly familiar...
-
Who needs Iran???
Our Secretary of Defense just announced that "we" are willing to send troops to Pakistan.
The basic divide in the USA is between pulling back from distant wars (Democrats), and continuing/expanding distant wars (Republicans).
Please, let's pull back, and wait for a genuine threat before we engage again.
-
Polls, Politics and the Media
Polls give just a reflection of a mood/impulse at a certain moment in time and can change quickly for any number of reasons. Right now, for example, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll of a national matchup of Democrats vs. Republicans shows Democrats beating every Republican by 10 percentage points with the exception of John McCain. In that case, Hillary has a 4 point edge and Obama is dead-even.
The other points I want to make are these:
If you do a little research into the "attacks" by Obama and Clinton on each other you'll see that they started months ago, not just in New Hampshire, and not just on the Clinton side.
Obama supporters need to end the notion that he is being unfairly picked-on by the Clintons. As media records show, Obama has participated equally vigorously in the "down-and-dirty" almost since he announced his candidacy.
It's also interesting to point out that Clinton's and Obama's voting records are nearly identical on the issues. The one exception is Barack Obama's statement against the war in Iraq while he was in the Illinois State Legislature.
Once elected to the Senate, Sen. Obama voted in favor of continued funding for the war(s) in Iraq and Afghanistan except once when he was marked as NV (Not Voting).
On the bankruptcy reform bill that received some attention at Monday's debate, information provided by Congressional Record and Project Vote Smart shows that Obama voted against an amendment to the bankruptcy bill that would have capped at 30 percent interest rates that credit card companies charge consumers. The amendment failed, but the bankruptcy bill passed and there is no cap on credit card interest rates.
SOURCE: http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V3480&can_id=9490
Also, Clinton is correct in that Obama has received money from organizations/corporations/companies, through their PACs and/or individual employees within these companies/ corporations/organizations. The Obama campaign has taken $59,661,650 from these PACs, including those listed here:
Goldman Sachs $369,078
Lehman Brothers $229,090
National Amusements Inc $220,950
JP Morgan Chase & Co $216,759
Sidley Austin LLP $203,325
Exelon Corp $194,750
Citigroup Inc $180,650
Citadel Investment Group $166,600
Jones Day $158,400
Skadden, Arps et al $150,900
UBS AG $146,150
Time Warner $142,718
Harvard University $141,700
University of California $126,972
Jenner & Block $122,419
Kirkland & Ellis $111,951
UBS Americas $106,680
Morgan Stanley $104,425
WilmerHale $102,360
Credit Suisse Group $92,300
SOURCE: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?cycle=2008&id=N00009638
Hillary Clinton's campaign contributions from corporate/ company/organization PACs amount to $69,189,421, including those listed here:
DLA Piper $356,100
Goldman Sachs $350,050
Morgan Stanley $323,550
Citigroup Inc $307,350
EMILY's List $211,642
National Amusements Inc $193,850
JP Morgan Chase & Co $173,350
Kirkland & Ellis $172,000
Skadden, Arps et al $151,460
Greenberg Traurig LLP $150,900
Cablevision Systems $135,113
Merrill Lynch $125,550
Time Warner $124,150
Lehman Brothers $123,450
Bear Stearns $120,580
Patton Boggs $118,400
Ernst & Young $110,650
Blank Rome LLP $105,100
Latham & Watkins $100,950
News Corp $99,350
SOURCE: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
If y'all want to continue focusing on who-said-what-when-to-whom and who's the "nastiest", then knock yourselves out!
I, for one, am tired of the tirades, rants, raves, mud-slinging and name-calling that BOTH campaigns are engaging in. But that's politics, like it or not.
I urge you to take a look at the record and stop listening to what the media and the candidates want to hype.