Letters to the Editor
-
@ jebldmm
If years in close proximity in Washington were the most important reason to select a President, I guess you'll be voting for McCain.
What will be Mrs. Clinton's plan to run against McCain?
Experience? National security? Will she run a 3am phone call ad, or will McCain simply rerun her ad with himself at the helm?
Some of the most seasoned and experienced experts were at the helm during this Bush fiasco, and where has it gotten us?
We don't need the same old ideas and attitudes running things again and again.
Mrs. Clinton is a retread of incompetency, cronyism, centrist DLC clap-trap. Luke warm Republicanism at tis worst.
Truman said if the American people have a choice between a Republican and and Democrat acting like a Republican, they'll pick the republican every time.
-
@jebldmm
If that is your criteria for a good President, well, fine, that is your criteria.
But the experience claim does not hold water with me, for two simple reasons. First, some of the best Presidents we ever had had even less experience than Obama has right now. Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson. Lincoln. Obama actually has more experience than any of those four did when they got into office.
And secondly, the other side of the coin shows that some of the worst Presidents we have ever had also had the most experience. James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, and Warren Harding especially stand out as bad Presidents who were in Washington forever.
Also, I maintain Obama does in fact understand economics, international relations, and government finance and grasp concepts instantly. I absolutely believe that Obama is easily the smarter of the two. Of the three, if you want to include McCain. I think each of their legislative records more than abundantly bear that out as well.
-
Ironically
A year or so ago, all the flap about Obama was whether or not he was "black enough" for the African-American community. It took him many months to build his support, and now that he has it, they are only voting for him because he's the black candidate. Go figure...
-
Okay, Uncle Fester, you'll get badass Smith tomorrow --
as long as you don't argue in Broadsheet, as some are doing, that the mentally retarded should be euthanized. I am thinking of putting some of those people on my ignore list.
At least I know you want a good argument and not just to kiss some politicians backside.
Right now, it's bed for me. Goodnight.
-
@Smith What?
as long as you don't argue in Broadsheet, as some are doing, that the mentally retarded should be euthanized.
What?
-
1865
In 1865 the women's suffrage movement (led by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton) refused to support the 14th Amendment which gave the right to vote to freed black men. The suffragettes felt white women should be given the right to vote before freed black men.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1866 and freed black men throughout the south were given the right to vote, mostly Republican (it was still the party of Lincoln then). Blacks were elected to local, state and federal offices in large numbers, in some cases attaining majorities in state legislatures.
The 1876 presidential election between Republican Rutherford Hayes and Democrat Samuel Tilden was the most disputed until 2000. The electoral votes of three states were in question, and a special commission was appointed to investigate. A deal was made. In exchange for the presidency and payment of their burdensome campaign debts, the Republicans agreed to withdraw federal troops from states that had seceded from the Union in 1861. The states maneuvered blacks out of office and instituted the Jim Crow era with its oppressive and repressive laws. Jim Crow would run the south until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Ferraro's comments, though not racist when read in full context, strike a chord similar to the complaints from Stanton and Anthony in 1865.
All Democrats must remember that it is vital to regain the presidency and win clear majorities in both houses of Congress so we may undo the damage done by 8 years of the Bush administration as well as advance the progressive goals we seek: national health care, an end to the war, increasing the minimum wage, and repealing the ruinous Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Too much is at stake to worry whether a woman or a black man becomes president. All that matters is that the next president be a Democrat and a democrat.
-
@pageiger The Full Context
Ferraro's comments, though not racist when read in full context
I genuinely don't know if Ferraro's comments are racist are not. But a lot of apologists have explained away any 'problems' by saying we just have to look at the full context. What is that context? Is it like a sekret decoder ring? I read the entire original article from the da breeze. It's online. Her subsequent statements did little to clarify her position other than to say it wasn't her fault and she's being persecuted for truth telling.
To me her words mean that Obama is only where he is due to his blackness. His other talents and experiences aren't enough. That's a lot different than saying his being black has had some advantages.
Also, I don't quite get your 1865 analogy, though it intrigues me and sounds like a weird karmic echo. It's a little too late on my side of the planet, so I might be suffering from a brain freeze. Are you saying we better watch it or we'll end up with nothing?
-
The War Room seems Pro Hillary and Kind of Sucks Now
Sorry, but I came to the War Room several times a day when Tim was writing. He was even-handed and a great, concise, writer.
Several times since, I have had the suspicion that the War Room has turned pro Hillary. This post leaves no doubt in my mind. I mean, there's just no defense for this kind of crap. None. Zero. Ferraro was way, way out of line and people responded accordingly(with the exception of Hillary Clinton).
And what's this about?:
But some intangibles, including his race but also his good looks, his age and his charisma, have mattered to at least some small degree for Obama, as they would have for -- and I imagine I can't stress this part enough -- any other candidate of any race.
How about some "intangibles" like, say, a great ground game, strategic genius, big ideas, incredible coalition building, phenominal leadership abilities and, oh yeah, class? Could it be possible that Obama has bested several other candidates and is kicking the paintsuit of his main contender with sheer skill and intelligence?
Call me when this column is back on track.