Letters to the Editor
-
@ lateagain
Second of all, your demand for "equality" in stories smacks of the kind of false balance that media fell for upon righties' demands that they tell the "good" about Iraq as well as the bad. A reporter's job is to tell the truth, not keep tabs on whose side its exposure benefits.
Soooo, are you discrediting my call for equality in stories picked for the War Room because it smacks of the right-wing whining? You are conflating Hillary's campaign with the Iraq War? That's hilarious. And Orwellian.
Obama supporters swim in their irony. Their idealism cannot jive with the reality of the seriousness accompanying the choice for POTUS. They accuse Hillary of being racist, then they turn around and say she is divisive and only got where she is because of her husband and use coded, sexist language, then they say it doesn't matter Obama doesn't have experience and then try and say her 8 years experience in the white house doesn't matter, then they say her tactics are dividing us but you're the ones acting all hypersensitive and conflating her actions to the republicans (which is so far off-base, since we've seen what they are willing to do), while ignoring Obama's negative attacks on her.
In fact, this piece proves that Obama supporters are just over-the-top hyper-ventilating at this point; accusing anything Hillary's campaign does as nasty and making the summary judgement that she will do anything to win. That includes making Obama's face darker and wider. You're right, this does show how ridiculous the accusations being leveled at Hillary has gotten. They have gotten too overprotective and are starting to lose their credibility.
Remember, she was a frontrunner once and she became the underdog because she was attacked, negatively. She wasn't attacked with hope and change. She was attacked as being part of "old politics" and no change from our status quo, or president idiot. She is "unable to govern" and that Hillary gives 'vague, calculated answers' does not have 'clear, consistent principles.' That's all straight from Obama's mouth. And then there are his surrogates, of which the latest called her a "monster". I wonder if Alex will post that one tomorrow (I'm not holding my breath).
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Monster.html
Look, I'm not defending Hillary and her decision to go negative but Obama made the same decision in Nov/Dec and she is not claiming the moral high ground in this race either. And clearly, its chancy to "hope" that hope will win the day when repugs are ready to string him up with unpatriotic charges, racist and muslim smears and roll out military guys willing to say he is not ready to be commander-in-chief. Whatever brilliance you see in the strategy of demonizing Hillary and pissing off half the base so that Obama can win unvetted and unchallenged only to see him get tossed around by the republican noise machine, I do not see.
BTW, here is a summary of the last 2 days of 'War Room' headlines pertaining to Obama and HRC's campaigns. See if there is any bias here:
Thursday, Mar 6
What Clinton thought about the release of tax returns, once
Obama sets another fundraising record
Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?
Can the Clinton campaign take the heat?
Blame Canada
"Penn should have been let go"
Wed, Mar 5
With Obama on the offensive, the Democratic campaigns trade attacks
New Clinton camp spin contradicts old Clinton camp spin
Howard Fineman, mind reader
Clearly, the headlines constantly cast clouds and doubts over the Clinton campaign while Obama gets no news, or good news most of the time. To be fair, Alex has been more even-handed than Tim Grieve, but it could definitely improve much more.