Letters to the Editor
-
David Brooks...
...sees dark times ahead for everyone who does not think like he does. And that is what Repubs are all about, fear mongering. The Bushie Repubs will push fear mongering as far as they can. Should that fail they will perpetrate a 'Pearl Harbor Event'.
-
What a Shift!!!!
It seems that only a few months ago there was a growing maturity in Democratic circles. The realization that many of us had never been Democrats, WE ARE PROGRESSIVES. I felt that this was especially strong in the aftermath of the Democratic failure to champion any of the issues they ran on in 2006. THe fact that Democrats were corrupt AND cowardly--became the only way to distinguish them from Republicans who were merely corrput.
The idea of Hillary continuing that legacy in the White House seems repellant to all of us. BUT DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT YOU GET TO BE IN THE TOP THREE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES BY NOT BEING A TEAM PLAYER? Does anyone really think that Obama appeared fully formed in the foam of legislative politics, never having taken political considerations over idealism and ethics? Think about this:
Where does all this money come from (and where is it going)?
How is he getting so many nods from so many establishment people?
Why does his rhetoric on Israel sound exactly like [insert Republican or Democrat stooge here].
Why didn't he vote against FISA reform [instead of just voting for the ammendments proposed by Dodd and Feinstein]?
There are many more questions that need to be asked if we really want to know what we're getting into. Don't get me wrong, out of all the choices, I think Obama makes the most sense, because at least the fact that we are electing a trans-national American with dark skin sends a pretty clear message. But that doesn't mean we have to check our brains at the door. Do you really think someone who was the descendant of slaves would have the same shot as Obama?
-
well said soopergrover
It is not possible for her to be the next president. It's not going to happen. this is a fact, not opinion. She can steal the nomination by crying for women, paying superdelegates (or already did in the past), but she cannot win.
If that is a fact, then what is she doing? If she really a republcain? Is she sabotaging obama or her party? If she cannot what is her purpose? To "toughen" up the south side of chicago man? For what? the irrelevant gop? So she's trying to win the nominatiion to toughen up obama? Ok, run with that clinton propogandists.
Doesn't change the fact she CANNOT win. does that make her and her old ladies and illegal aliens republcain sabotuers, a la bush? To me it does. So for all clinton supporters saying we should vote for her and we are all democrats. Now you see why that is not the case. If she is a republican sabotuer, why not just elect Mccain. The republcains really to hate him. Clinton is the only conservative candidate left. The gop is done (clinton included). It's over. Now stop sabotaging progress and america and get with the program
-
sigh
Nothing new, insightful, or even interesting here. But at least Koppelman cited his source.
-
I don't subscribe to Salon to be insulted
I've supported Sen. Obama from the start. I've never been to one of his rallys. Initially, I supported Sen. Obama based on his opposition to the war. I also do not believe that forcing folks to buy private insurance will 1) provide universal care (what about undocumented workers?) 2) Is a progressive way to acheive true universal healthcare.
I expect this crap from Brooks. But for Salon to print this quote with no comment except -- "From New York Times columnist David Brooks' latest column, on Barack Obama and his supporters." Is an insult to its progressive readers who happen to support Mr. Obama, because the quote does not criticize Mr. Obama or his policies, but the people who are "stupid" enough to support him.
I will not be renewing my subscription.
-
His Hopeness
Rules the Kingdom of caucuses.....
So far there have been 23 caucuses, 12 on the Republican side and 11 on the Democratic side.
Question: In the 23 caucus state results so far, how many of these states would you guess have given the majority of their delegates to either Clinton or McCain? Clinton the presumptive democratic nominee at one time and winner of the California, New York, New Jersey, and Florida regular primary voting by wide margins, and McCain who is way ahead in the overall republican delegate count.
Answer: Zero.
(Hillary won Nevada but not a majority of the delegates and McCain barely won Washington but the delegates have yet to be awarded.)
Statistically this is mind boggling and someone needs to look into how these damn things are run.
-
It's just bad satire
There's no need to take this bit seriously. Brooks is trying to be humorous here. I mean, its not actually funny, and Brooks comes off like a smug prick, but bad satire is still just satire. No need to freak out.
-
How astonishingly vacuous!
I can't believe Brooks draws a salary for writing this kind of crap.
But I was completely unsurprised to see Notorious WES adopt Brooks' vacuousness for his equally vacuous hatred of All Things Obama. I just wonder: at some point, Clinton's supporters will be so indistinguishable from Republicans, will we reach a point where she starts competing against McCain for the GOP nomination?
-
Hillary
Re: "Hillary Clinton will never be President of the United States of America. John McCain maybe. Barack Obama maybe. But Hillary Clinton never. "
Says who? Hillary would easily beat John McCain. No way can he get enough electoral votes to win.
-
Did anyone actually read the editorial?
Brooks is fairly generous to Obama and his supporters:
"But the fact that they can share this dream still means something. After the magic fades and reality sets in, they still know something about his soul, and he knows something about theirs. They figure that any new president is going to face gigantic obstacles. At least this candidate seems likely to want to head in the right direction. Obama’s hype comes from exaggerating his powers and his virtues, not faking them."
Come on, folks. Don't be so eager to flip out. The overreaction by some of the supporters of Obama on this board does more to damage the legitimacy of his candidacy than anything Brooks says in the editorial.