Letters to the Editor
-
Baracks lack of accomplishments
This is the major problem I have with Barack. He just hasn't done anything that would prove he could manage our country. Poetic rhetoric aside, he is not really qualified to be our President, and frankly I just don't like him. As a lifelong Democrat, if he wins the nomination I may have to sit this one out, I simply refuse to vote for this man. It's one thing to keep spouting "change" without ever proving that you've been able to accomplish change in your previous environments, ie Illinois state legislature etc. McCain will be devastating for our country because of his policies toward Iraq and his complete lack of understanding of the economy, but Barack I think would be worse and leave us with a poetic speech maker who is unable to accomplish any of his goals.
-
If I only had a name...
@exdred, I'd keep that list of Hillary's accomplishments somewhere safe if I were you.
The naming of courthouses and post offices, commemoration of sports teams, and other plauditory effluvia the esteemed senator from New York trails in her wake are not exactly the kinds of things at the top of the list of issues on which the Americans crave leadership.
Chris Matthews is the public airwaves' embarrassing Uncle Ernie. I get the creeps everytime he opens his mouth.
-
For Blacks and Women, the standard is higher
Not surprising from heterosexual white males. I can't remember Bubba's, Bush's, or even Kerry's surrogates getting grilled like this.
It's OK to quiz the candidate himself/herself, but not really fair to go after surrogates.
I do remember Bush getting quizzed in 2000 "Who is the prime minister of Ukraine?" and other such questions, however. That's fair game.
-
Matthews was never an admirer
He's a hitman. A reactionary posing as a centrist Demo since his early days at the San Francisco Examiner, he did his job on H. Clinton. Now that Clinton is effectively out of the way he moves to Obama.
His bullying tactics pretty clearly showed he wanted no answers.
The media is filled with people who are in place to attack the status quo. That's their job. Matthews' acidy queen persona is sometimes funny but he's armed and dangerous. Nobody should pay attention to him for what he's asking, but for who he's trying to hurt. That will point the way back to his masters.
-
AS i watched this exchange
last night, I tried to imagine how the state senator might have responded :
state senator : No sir, I am not familiar with the pieces of legislation that he has moved through the senate, but his greatest accomplishment in my opinion is the current success of his campaign.
Matthews: That's not what I asked...what legislative accomplishments--
state senator : No, Chris, you get to ask the question the way you want,and I get to answer the question the way I want.His campaign is showing him to be a brilliant organizer and manager,someone who is attracting the best and the brightest to his campaign, someone who is going toe to toe with a candidate who descibes herself as "ready on day one" and he is running circles around her. He is a leader who--
Matthews: NO, I'm sorry sir,but---
state senator: shut your pie hole because i'm not finished with my answer. This campaign will not be determined by who pushed more paper in the senate.This campaign will be determined by which candidate can inspire us to come together as a nation and reclaim our moral authority in the world. And in that regard, senator Obama has proved in spades that he is the superior candidate and is ready to transform America on "day one."
-
Valid but wrong
Its a valid question, however Matthews makes a huge mistake I think when he equates support, with legislative accomplishments. As if there is no other reason to support someone.
Matthews: No, no, what has he accomplished, sir? You say you support him, sir, you have to give me his accomplishments.
What kind of BS is that? Given people's opinion of congress, you have to ask how many people might feel a person with a lot of legislative experience is tainted.
Also considering Obama's 11 years as a state legislator, seems to me if Matthews wanted to know, he could have found easily.
Matthews is a piece of garbage. Not for this but also for his disgusting comments towards HRC. Seems a disgrace he's considered 'mainstream'
-
What if some journalists
actually did some reporting and researched and informed of us Obama's accomplishments.
Here are links about a few of them:
What others are Saying:
Fair Policing: http://tinyurl.com/2jk8qx
long url: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14134.html
Ethics Reform http://tinyurl.com/3yjnbq
long url: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010602402_2.html?nav=rss_politics&sid=ST2008010602580
Health Care http://tinyurl.com/38fgwy
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=88a93be1-0e3b-40a7-becf-0dcdbf450e1b
Graphic of Illinoise Senate record
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/1037/38010/528/460167
It is shameful that the media perpetuate this charade.
-
Embarrassing
Chris Matthews is an embarrassment to "journalism".
Fortunately, voters have the ability to use simple tools like Google, the candidates' own web-sites, and the Congressional
Record to find out what politicians have and have not done. I assume most informed voters and supporters would do that.
Anyone who goes on television to speak on behalf of a candidate ought to have some minimal knowledge of that candidates' record -- but I'll be there are a lot of Hillary supporters who don't know much about her actual legislative record, either. It's all part of the dumbing down of politics.
Nonetheless, Barack Obama, who actually does have a substantial record, will find a way to make this work for him -- just watch.
-
what he didn't say
it is unfortunate the gentleman from texas was not more forthcoming to matthews disrespectful and arrogant challenge to come up with something obama has done; however, the meaningful(and tirade-stopping) answer would have been, "gee mr. matthews, i can tell you what he didn't do - he didn't vote to authorize this war!"
-
Anonymous 07:51
You claim you don't hate America, but your statements clearly show otherwise. You say you support Hillary, but if she's not the nominee you'll support the worst possible candidate, calling the other "worse". Why? Bitterness?
You can "Simply not either one to be President" as much as you want, but if they are the two nominees, you won't have a choice. Were Hillary to be the nominee, I'd vote for her. If it is Obama I'll vote for him. Either one is better than McCain.
There are plenty of ways to ask people to take another look at Clinton and Obama and weigh various aspects of their potential without threatening to allow McCain to become president.
You're basically saying that if your candidate isn't the nominee, you're taking your ball and going home and everyone (yourself included) can burn in the hell McCain will make.