Letters to the Editor
-
Shame
The stumping by Oprah and Caroline, Senator Kennedy and others will come back to haunt them.
We still do not know why Michele Obama's wages made a major increase after her husband was made US Senator, or how did they manage to buy their house for much less with the sleeze's wifes participation?
Does everyone really think this country will elect a ex-drug dealer over a war hero?
-
Karenkb41, Texas Democrat
Under what rock do these Hillary-bot Salon newbies keep crawling out from? If you have never posted on Salon, but show up just in the last couple days to trash one candidate and praise another, you are a campaign operative.
-
@Texas Democrat
I agree with you 100%. The press will have him for breakfast once they've got Hillary out of the way. He also is way way way too close with the Republicans for my comfort and has campaigned far too negatively.
All St. Obama's "supporters" (probably GOPsters) can do here is make pathetic and juvenile attacks on those of us who point out St. Obama's very real faults and why he will lose in a general election. (A Kennedy endorsement is going to HELP him in the heartland???, leaving aside the grandoise and untrue claims St. Obama has made of himself, his Rezzo connections, wife's sudden salary increases, ad nauseum).
And what could someone like him do even if he did get elected ? He doesn't know the ropes, hasn't been there and made his mistakes and learned. He'd be so ineffective the Republicans would be pulling him out for the next 20 years as a shining example of Democrat incompetence as they did with Mayor David Dinkens in NY and President Jimmy Carter.
And shame on Oprah. It's a travesty she's turned her once good legacy into a trashing Americans for the materialism she herself promotes, and for opening schools in S.Africa where child abuse apparently occured for lack of supervision, and now as a polemic hack simply campaigning for someone who clearly will lose because of their skin color.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Hope and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee. A wishlist without a hard plan and the knowhow is simply a pipedream.
-
Hillary has her own female celebrity endorsers
Barbra Streisand, Maya Angelou, Mary Steenburgen. Attacking Obama for calling on The Oprah in the campaign is nuts. Would you begrudge Hillary a last-minute Streisand concert? If not, then methinks you are a hypocrite. And if you begrudge Obama the tactic of going for the "soft sell" to women, then ask yourselves how you feel about Monday night's Hallmark channel breast self-exam, um, I mean call-in show, with Hillary. No doubt she's been practicing her Kindergarten Teacher Voice all week with her focus groups for the occasion. Get your Kleenex ready!
-
correction
I believe the reason Obama would/will lose a general election is because he's painted himself as being something he isn't has overstated and exaggerated things he's done, has too much support from the radical hard left Kennedy's moveon, etc) and because his record in the Senate is largely unexamined and has a particularly high absent rate, because he's inexperienced and because of his ties to Chicago hustlers like Rezzo, and so forth).
-
Hope and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee.
Here's two bucks. I hope you and the other astroturfers on both sides leave after Super Tuesday.
-
The media is already starting to turn on Obama
If you haven't read this story (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&ex=1359781200&en=dc32a822488c8617&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin)in todays NY Times you all should do so. It cuts past the hype and raises a serious question as to his experience and ability to get anything done.
-
could there be more obama bashing than there is on this thread?
The Kiddy you write
The "uneducated" electorate votes for someone for President for gosh sake because Ophra recommends him. It is so insulting to the voters. Maybe if I were a fan of Ophra I would feel differently?
But what about the fact that Obama's supporters are supposedly more educated that Clinton's--that they are internet and information savvy and they have looked at the so-called scandals and looked behind them and under them and not been impressed?
(ie he paid Rezko more than market value for the land he bought--the owner had already divided the property into two parts--
and about his wife's raises, this was talked about two years ago and here's the result:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/09/hospital_offici.html
a Tribune story, a USA Today story--hospital officials say she is "worth her weight in gold" and her promotions occurred before he was "Barack" of the presidential campaign.....)
The fear tactics used on this thread are honestly worthy of the G.O.P....
-
James65
Here's Obama's response to the New York Story
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/
scroll down to New York Story
He is still fighting for regulation that is mandated, not voluntary. So where is the problem?
Per Obama's side of the story:
"NYT NEVER MENTIONS THAT THE REVISED BILL, LIKE THE ORIGINAL, REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC LEAKS AND THAT THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THAT REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE MADE THROUGH THE REGULATORY PROCESS.
National Journal Wrote That "Obama's Bill would Require Any Leak" Exceeding NRC Accepted Levels "Be Reported To State And Local Authorities, And To The NRC Within 24 Hours." "'Obama's bill would require that any leak of radioactive materials exceeding the levels set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the EPA be reported to state and local authorities, and to the NRC within 24 hours. It also would require the NRC to devise reporting requirements for such accidents within two years. Currently, private nuclear companies are not required to notify officials of any leak that is not considered a public health or safety emergency under criteria set by the NRC and EPA. In a statement, Obama said the bill would ensure 'that concerned parents and citizens won't have to rely on the federal government or an image-conscious corporation to get information.'" [National Journal's CongressDaily, 9/25/06]
REALITY: NYT NEVER MENTIONED THAT THE REVISED BILL ACTUALLY STRENGTHENED THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TO SPECIFY THAT "IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION" SHOULD MEAN 24 HOURS
etc. etc.
and the NYTimes certainly has no more fondness for the Clintons, as this article demonstrates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?ex=1359435600&en=23a4d96223965ebf&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all