Letters to the Editor
-
Now for a much more amusing approach to this issue!
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/09/late-night-your-favorite-candidate-sucks/
-
Paul Krugman criticizes Obama supporters
Paul Krugman was spot on! The venom is beyond even the right wing creeps. I can't believe some of the remarks I've been reading from so-called Democrats. You'd think they were rethug shills. You'd think they were talking about bush. I don't know how the Democrats can or should win with such nastiness. It's like reading something from mad dogs (limbaugh, coulter, et al). And, in the end, you're supposed to rally behind your party's nominee. They are both impressive candidates. No candidate's running, except for any rethug, deserves the vitriol.
-
Generation Landslide
How far things have gone is shown by how people were so ebullient about the Democratic lineup before votes were cast -- "What great candidates! How lucky are we?" With the assumption that we would all fall like dominoes for Clinton, the media-stoked and presumptive candidate, the Exploding Plastic Inevitable, Hillary Clinton. Before voting, that was the narrative, mind you. Not-yet-victorious, but so magnanimous, so presumptuous, so long as everybody knew who would get the eventual nomination: Clinton.
And then, whoopsie, the primary race, what was expected to be a Clinton coronation has turned into a real battle that has revealed not strength in the Clinton candidacy, but weakness after weakness, and Obama has revealed strength after strength. Suddenly we were off script -- it's like Dean all over again, except no Scream(tm) and actual voter turnout! And the plaudits early on about how great the field was turned first to annoyance, then disdain, then contempt, then hostility, then outrage, then bitterness.
Didn't Obama's supporters realize the election is Clinton's to lose? I guess we didn't get the script beforehand. That's exactly when things turned south -- roses were lobbed Edwards' way when he went down, and if Obama falls to the Clintons, he'll get his share of roses, too -- not unlike how statesmanlike and presidential Gore was said to be when he took the dive in 2000 and gave the election to Bush. They do so love a noble loser in our party -- we have so many of them.
No, the venom's in the fangs of the Clintonite's, because Obama has rained on their parade by making Clinton fight for the nomination that was portrayed as hers to win, at least before votes were cast. Theirs is the disappointment, and theirs is the rancor. Compared to the electoral heights Clinton occupied at the outset, Obama came from nowhere -- he was the David, not Goliath. And now Clinton's got the headaches, and her followers are pissed.
Good candidates, remember? Good candidates garner support, and prompt real primary fights. I don't resent the Clintonites for supporting their candidate; I only resent their resentment because I support mine. You wanted a good race? This is a great race, and may the best candidate win, fair and square. No regrets, but, please, let's have an honest winner, and not another noble loser, or worse, an ignoble loser.
-
@-- jpetty, Latte liberal - excuse me?
I am working class, paycheck-to-paycheck, Maxwell House coffee-drinking "Liberal".
I voted for Obama for Senator. I voted for Obama for the Democratic presidential nominee. Ancient African-American saying: don't count nobody else's money.
See, the thing is, White, liberal Democrats have taken African-Americans for granted for the last 30 years. We were never "black voters", we were "the base". Court us in our churches, pass out turkeys and hams in the projects on the holidays, tell us the Republican boogie-man is going to put uys all back in slavery and kill us ("Vote or Die") but avoid us like the fuckin' black plague (no pun intended) when it's time to court "suburban (white) voters" for the general elections. once implanted in office, we're ignored, have draconian policies passed against our communities (Don't Ask. Don't Tell, draconian drug laws and welfare "reform") and we don't see much of ya until the next election, when you run your asses back up the pulpits of the black ministers that you've paid off. And this crap worked for awhile, until Hillary (unsuccessfully) channeled Harriet Tubman.
Dubya got 22% of the black vote in '04. The Republicans are well-poised to split OR completely take back the African-American majority - and not because of Obama, or the damn lies that so-called white liberal HRC supporters continue to tell on Michelle Obama, BUT because Democrats and white liberals have practived paternalistic racism against people of color - blacks in particular, for years - and (quote Malcom X) your chickens have come home to roost.
This "yellow-dog" Democrat had no plans to EVER vote for HRC (don't believe in political dynasites, and I don't owe her a job just because Bill stuck his dick down some other woman's mouth). Even when Obama was a puppy in the Illinois state senate. HRC is not a liberal, or even a moderate; she is an opportuisit centrist whol will use her sheep-like constituents' irrational fear of all things Republican and Conservative against them and throw you under the bus (as she and her old man did the first time around) to further her own personal and professional efforts.
So to Paul Krugman and all of you exasperated white "liberals": keep on with bullshit passive-aggressive race-baiting and lies against Obama, keep believing that you're "entitled" to "our base", and not only will you lose the white house for a very LONG time, you'll also lose the house and the senate.
Amazing how Krugman and HRC supporters thought that Obama was the cat's meow in '04, as long as they could him serving THEIR purposes.
We ain't your father's negroes.
-
I am so sick of this
Please, please, please, stop. All of you.
Jesus fucking christ, you people are out of your minds. And John McCain and Karl Rove are laughing their asses off about it.
Signed,
A John Edwards Supporter Who Will Vote For Whichever Democrat Survives Having His Or Her Eyes Clawed Out
-
haters
I wanted to respond to Krugman's article on the NYT's website, but there wasn't an open comment forum. I think the whole "hating" thing is largely a media invention. If you look at the actual comments that come in response to articles like his, about 90% say they felt they were faced with 2 good candidates, and voted for the one they liked better. Maybe a few Obama supporters would not vote for Hillary, but they are likely voters who, if Obama wasn't campaigning, probably wouldn't vote at all (young or disenfranchised black voters). I, like many others, went back and forth a lot, but my decision was sealed when Bill Clinton spoke in South Carolina. It brought back the constant chaos that surrounded the Clintons when he was in office. One crisis to the next. While I certainly liked him far more than Bush, I would rather have a candidate who can accomplish things without the Clinton dysfunction.
And Krugman should really take a look at his personal biases. A lot of white men his age have gone with his preferences: Edwards, Clinton, Obama. As defensible as this sequence might be, couldn't there be something going on along the lines of: I want the candidate that most resembles me?