Letters to the Editor
-
This argument boils down to:
"Yes, I called you a homo. What? You're upset? Do you have something against homos?"
-
I don't recall seeing HIllary in a plaid skirt. . .
"Every time I traveled to foreign countries, I wore the costume of the country" - Hillary Clinton
Really? Every time? So when you go to the UK you dress up in one of the traditional costumes? I don't recall ever having seeing that. This just seems like a patently false statement.
As for the rest of the story, who really cares?
-
Rovian tactics
The Clinton campaign is fully into the Rovian scorched-earth campaign. She does not deserve to win the nomination.
-
No "categorical denial"?
This has been on Yahoo, from the AP, for several hours:
"I just want to make it very clear that we were not aware of it, the campaign didn't sanction it and don't know anything about it," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said in a teleconference with reporters. "None of us have seen the e-mail in question. If anybody has independent reporting that they've done on it I would welcome it."
I don't know how much more of a denial you want. It sounds pretty clear to me. Now, can we address the appropriateness of Obama smearing Clinton for sending out this photo based on nothing more than Drudge's assertion? Why is it not a smear when Obama attacks her for doing something she may or may not have done? The only appropriate response to this from the Obama camapaign should have been "we do not comment on unproven allegations", there are issues to be discussed and we intend to discuss them. But they didn't do that.
"Obama campaign manager David Plouffe accused Clinton's campaign of "the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we've seen from either party in this election."" "Obama, in an interview with WOAI radio in San Antonio, Texas, said voters are "saddened when they see these kind of politics.""
That's the message of the party of "unity". That's the "positive" message of the Obama campaign.
-
Baffled
I support Obama, so I can't pretend I don't want Hillary to lose the nomination. But, as other readers have commented, I also don't want to see this campaign destroy her and her political legacy.
I genuinely believe that she wants to do good. I think she is brilliant and devoted to the ideals of public service. But it's hard to understand why she can't see that these non-denial denials and her constant refrain of "it's not fair that they like him more than me; that they are nicer to him than me;" are doing more harm than good. If she is in fact so experienced and so ready, why can't she change her campaign strategy and find something that actually works? Why do we keep hearing about plagiarism? Why are do we keep hearing about inexperience when it's clear that no one cares about this as an issue? Why do we keep hearing about the minutia of policy, when they essentially agree on everything? Why can't she just appeal to voters for who she is and trust that that will be enough? Democratic voters want to believe that we can be better and we can do better than we are now. Why can't she trust that if she shows genuine concern, that if she rises above this pettiness, and that if she stops being so condescending and at the same time so stubborn, people would respond with the kind of admiration and trust that she probably deserves?
-
Give me a damned break!
If Hillary Clinton for one second thinks that her half-assed denial of this attempt to stir up the whole "is he or is he not a muslim" is going to fly..she is more delusional than I thought. She's been on tv for a couple of days screeching like a barn owl about the word 'boon'! Her campaign knew exactly what they were doing with this and they may as well attach those ignorant chain emails to the photo. So for her to downplay the importance of this obvious scare tactic and go on and on about how Obama should be "ashamed" of himself for his mailers and to "meet her in Ohio" like she wants to throw down or something, really makes me wonder about her stability.
-
Seriously, this is going to net her two 20 point win?
That's what Hillary needs next week in both Ohio and Texas to have any chance at all of catching Obama in pledged delegates. And this is the strategy her multi-million dollar campaign has come up with? If she's not working toward that goal, then she's not serious about winning the nomination.
Obama has proven he is capable of winning state after state with huge margins. Clinton hasn't. And her campaign hasn't shown me anything that says she can. In fact, she doesn't seem to be interested in winning my vote at all. Strange way to run a campaign in a Democratic primary.
-
The media coverage has not been the problem here.
The Clinton campaign has gone/has been a negative campaign ever since they were shocked out of their donuts after the Iowa caucus. And Mr. Wolfson is doing nothing but blaming the media for his (and Mr. Penn's) ineffective service as campaign managers.
The media has actually given Hillary Clinton a pass on nearly everything she has done. If a male candiate had 1) shed a tear after losing one state and the day before the next election; 2)fawned over the opposing candidate one night but; 3) 36 hours later scolded and waived his arms regarding the opposing candidate, and next, 4) enacted some very cringe-inducing "rhetorical flourishes" intended to get a crowd "all whooped up" the next day, I can guarantee you that male candidate would have come under media ridicule. This has not happened to Hillary Clinton. In fact, I feel the media has gone out of its way to portray this as a legitimate political strategy rather than as a candidate coming unglued --- which I think is more appropros to the situation at hand. And I write this as a 52 year old, life-long, liberal female, former 2-time Clinton voting Democrat. I wish Hillary would quit and not make it harder for the next female candidate.
-
@kidkostar
She knows she can't win the nomination anymore, so she's not even trying to be liked. The last debate was her goodbye - and now she's just trying to make sure Obama doesn't win the general election.