Letters to the Editor
-
Hutman 2, Dim White Male 0
thanks, hutman, for taking the time to teach kindergarten to the freak republik trouser snake posing as a Clinton supporter. It is rather diverting to watch The Pawn piss into a stiff breeze, though.
-
Reality-based Liberal
This has been my experience here as well. Bring up valid points about Obama's (associations, character, truthfullness, accusations of racism and constant convient memory lapses) and immediately you're labeled as a Republican, racist or idiot.
-
@odog11 - yes I know.
It's much easier for the folks here to attack you than to actually respond to your statements/questions...
You're assuming 1) they're really not REpublicans 2) that it's not the same person signing on with multiple sigs (at least "three" of them are, I'm sure) and that 3) they have the education or inclination to respond coherently 4) the intellectual honesty and so forth...
It's actually become comical to watch what I call the 3 headed road show sputter out their vulgarity. A real winning set for the Obamateur for certain!
Dirt is actually starting to stick to Obama and this is only from the Dems. The Republican attack machine won't even need to be oiled up.
I know. I knew that from the beginning though. Karl Rove is no moron and he's hardly sitting on the sidelines. They knew HRC would run in 2008 and that they only way they could beat her was to get out of the way. As I understand it they even had a hand in exposing Ryan's (the original Repub that Obamteur was to run against) divorce records to the public to knock him down to ensure Obamateur got in. They knew he was a two-bit crook and that the lefties would go weak-at-the-knees for him while at the same time it would incite an inner-part racial division. The worst part is that the former Sen. of Illinois, Fitzie, was one of the few decent Republicans out there (small matter he resigned) and I really liked him.
I'm guessing Obama probably has every available resource (that is non Republican registration related) working on the "Uncle Jeremiah Wright" issue. Dvd's, writings, audio (His weekly radio address). I'm sure we haven't heard the last word on "Honkygate". Actually, Obama himself should host a weekly "denial" radio show where he can absolve himself of any crooked association.
Yeah. It's already too late though. Where I am , albeit more flyover Dem country, nobody here will even consider him. He's toast. Hispanics and blue collars will take McCain over him and I'd even bet if Iowa was redone he'd lose handily.
My prediction is that Hilary will win the popular vote in Penn by about 18%. Obama will actually come out ahead in Delegates due to the DNC "new math" of proportional delegates.
Don't even get me going on that. After this bloodbath in November and the loss of Congress with it (probably the least considered point of all) the party is DOA. As well it should be. I hate to say it too, but I'm done with 'em myself. This was it for me; we should be cleaning the clock to a permanent majority instead of still slugging it out with a self-entitled crook and his shrill supporters who must relive history over and over like ghouls.
-
@wontbefooledagain
You have summed it up succinctly. Well said. the only point I would quibble on is whether or not the Obamteur will lose to McCain.
Considering the primary share of his delegates come from either solidly red states (Idaho, South Carolina, Alabama, Miss, etc) and either college kids or African-Americans, he's for certain to go down in flames.
As for Donna Brazile, don't get me going. She'd do the party a favor by working for the Repubs. Remember how she entirely blew Gore's campaign and now she's inciting riots : well in a sane country she'd be tried for high crimes and treason. but since what she's doing is helping the Repubs of course she won't be.
-
Dog Style with Shawn, Again
Mutual admiration is so unbounded between the two of you I think a motel is in order. Something just off the interstate with an ice machine and porn on line. I don't think you're republikans, or idiots; frankly, I don't know what you are, other than disconnected from reality. But if you want to get together and play "hide the super delegates", by all means fulfill your all to evident desires. At least you're not Confederates. I think. fondly, quickylube
-
@wontgetfooledagain
wontgetfooledagain: "As someone who has found Barack Obama wanting for his policies, his rhetoric and his experience, I have to admit that, at first, I underestimated him for his savvy, as a political animal. No more do I underestimate those skills."
He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, eh? If Obama doesn't fight well politically, people call him "naive" or as "Obambi." If he does fight well politically, people claim he has violated his message of hope. Apparently there is no in-between for some pepole.
wontgetfooledagain: "His approach to Pennsylvania outlined in this article is just another example of making the most of every opportunity."
What kind of American makes the most of opportunities?
wontgetfooledagain: "1) falsely putting into question the Clinton’s civil rights record"
I'm not sure whether they've done this through surrogates or not, but I haven't heard it. Example? What Obama HAS done is attempt to question Clinton on her claims of experience. From my subjective observation, I would say that Obama has been about 90% focused on his own message and about 10% focused on challenging Clinton's attacks and in turn putting her on the defensive (up from about 5% previously). Whereas Clinton has been about 50% broadcasting her own message and 50% attacking her opponent.
wontgetfooled: "2) promoting Republican talking points against the Clintons for empty, overly investigated “controversies,”"
Which talking points? I haven't seen the Obama camp bring up Whitewater at all. They have questioned her guarded stance about her tax returns, though they're not overplaying their hand on it -- just questioning it. What else? What are your examples? I really haven't heard many in the Obama campaign repeat right-wing talking points, though I have heard Clinton compare Obama campaigners to Ken Starr and Karl Rove, trying really, really hard to draw out Democratic sympathies from past decades.
wontgetfooledagain: "3) seizing upon Republican hatred for the Clintons as a reason to vote for stealth candidate Obama"
I haven't heard this at all from the Obama campaign. I can't vouch for what people in message boards might have said, but it is definitely not a central pillar of Obama's candidacy. It is legitimate, however, to point to poll numbers that show Obama having an advantage beating McCain compared to Clinton. Why shouldn't he?
wontgetfooled: "4) avoidance of legitimate questions of presidential leadership through the use of well-timed racial attacks on Hillary Clinton (see LBJ comments and the South Carolina primary)"
First of all, there's no reason to suggest that Obama has avoided such questions about his leadership ability. Obama has touted many qualifications and strengths. Second, the "racial attack" on Hillary Clinton, as you describe it, was Clinton's own gaffe and bad judgment, not Obama's. Clinton was welcome to explain herself, and she did. But it didn't change the fact that saying something that can be interpreted as diminishing MLK Jr.'s accomplishment, even if that's not your intention, is not going to play well with some people. Obama, for his own part, did not push this very hard at all, merely saying he thought Clinton's comments "ill-advised" and then downplaying the whole thing. You may beg to differ, I get the sense that Obama doesn't like capitalizing on negative stuff all that much and would prefer to win because people like him and his message. That's how I feel, anyway.
wontgetfooled: "5) stressing the importance of race to black voters in Southern states, while promoting the theory that race did not matter in less diverse states."
Can you provide some example for the statement that Obama was "stressing the importance of race to black voters"? If you're trying to say that Obama should not try to maximize his appeal to black voters, then that is absurd. If you're trying to say that Obama cannot legitimately attempt to also maximize his appeal to white voters, then that is also absurd. The truth is that Obama has largely avoided divisive politics in his central campaign message. (Jesse Jackson Jr. spoke off-message early on -- has anybody seen him around much since then?)
wontgetfooled: "He has disingenuously exaggerated the comparison between his speech against Bush’s War in Iraq"
There's nothing disingenuous about it at all. At that time, in that feverishly patriotic climate, Obama had much more to lose by making his anti-Iraq-war stance known than Hillary did by voting to authorize the war. Whatever the case, the more important fact is that Obama gave sound reasons for opposing the war, and his reasoning was borne out. Hillary gave hedged, rationalized reasons for trusting Bush with war power, and the devastating consequences of her hedged reasoning are becoming more and more apparent over time.