Letters to the Editor
-
I Wonder ...
Surely there is something out there that the Republicans might use against Hillary. I just can't think of anything that would make her unelectable.
-
Nice to see she's as forthright with her answers as ever...
...too bad there weren't any whirring helicopters around so she could have used Reagan's old trick.
-
If you panders to fear
And not to hope, then she really is making, that final last grope.
-
This is understandable.
And I'm an Obama-supporter.
People deserve to know about this, and it made people re-evaluate their support for Obama. This is a good thing, I think. We need to look at someone closely before we make them president.
I believe Obama's answer to this contravery was brilliant, and I hope it will satisfy his critics. I'm sure this will continue to haunt him, but if it takes events like this to historic speeches like that, then so be it. Obama's hand was forced, and we are better off as a nation for having heard his remarks on race in this country.
-
It's okay to be haunted
But we will not be taunted.
-
Clinton doesn't deny?
That headline strongly suggests she's done something wrong. But maybe you should ask another question: why should she deny it? Is it illegal? Unethical? Immoral? To suggest something that a lot of Democrats believe--that Obama's connection to Wright might make him less electable?
As Clinton points out, she's been making the electability case all along. If she truly believes she is more electable, she must also believe the Wright fiasco is evidence in her favor. So what's wrong with telling others that?
She's being polite not to say it in public, presumably because being impolite could make her look mean and thereby hurt her politically.. But she'd be stupid not to point it out privately to superdelegates.
-
Anyone notice Obama acknowledged Wright is a political liability?
"Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said they had spent recent days making the case to wavering superdelegates that Mr. Obama’s association with Mr. Wright would doom their party in the general election."--NYT article
Since electability is one of the things super delegates weigh in their decision making, why wouldn't they make the case that Obamas association with Wright is a liability in the general election?
To me the issue is if Obamas past campaign practices "rise" to the "post-racial" occassion, Obama will vomit up the race card and twist this into Clinton making Obamas race, not Wrights political liability, an issue with super-delegates.
Truth has an increasing meagerness of friends.
-
The root of the problem
"If the Clintons were authentic progressives, or even authentic patriots, or just ordinary decent Americans, or just members of the Democratic Party who wanted their party to win in November, they would have led a furious defense of Obama and his pastor by putting things in perspective." - Frank Schaeffer
That's very true and cuts to the very heart of the issue. THE CLINTONS ARE NOT ANY OF THOSE THINGS. What they are is self serving opportunists who will stop at nothing to pursue their own self aggrandizement. The last thing this nation needs as a follow-up to George W. Bush is another power intoxicated hypocrite.
Hello, President McCain
-
That's it.
I'm done. War Room is now officially an Obama campaign mouthpiece. It is what Fox News is to the Republican Party. Maybe I'll try again after the primary when we're all on the same team again.
-
Changed headline
Hey, now you've changed the headline from "Clinton doesn't deny selling Wright story to superdelegates" to "Clinton's nondenial on Obama pastor." The new headline is way more ambiguous, much worse grammatically, and uses at least one nonword. Even if there were such a thing as a "nondenial," how could it be "on Obama pastor?" Maybe you meant
"Clinton nondenies Obama-pastor-story superdelegate-selling."
-
So What?
The all-too-frequent premise on this and other liberal sites is that it is only Clinton who is using every strategy at her disposal, however cynical, in the attempt to win the nomination. Meanwhile Obama is slow-walking the DNC on Michigan and Florida, willing to disenfranchise those voters on narrow procedural grounds to secure the nomination rather than support a re-vote. He also benefits from the mainstream media obsession with things like Blue Dress Day, which is why he was so eager to have Clinton release her records. So perhaps we can dial back on the indignation if Clinton very logically points out to the superdelegates that Obama's chances in the general election have taken a huge, perhaps even fatal, hit recently.
-
Just another red-meat piece
This is non story, unless you are interested in page-hits.
Of course Clinton is going to be making a pitch based on the Rev Wright. Yawn. Of course the Noise machine is already out there, beta testing their fall 527 concepts. I heard "Kill Whitey" on the radio today. Personally I think that one is a little dated, but I'm sure they will improve.
-
Ahab in a Pantsuit
Hillary won't stop, consequences be damned! This is her nomination, Obama supporters! Your insolence will not go unpunished!
-
The pastor isn't the problem
The problem is the little lily white goblins who're setting a big bon fire for Obama. Glad to see that the spouse of "the first black presidet" is showing the true color of her politics.
-
Oh, Alex......
"Now, it's worth noting, before anyone jumps to conclusions here, that a nondenial isn't the same as a confirmation, which she didn't give either."
"...and though she didn't confirm Nagourney's report, Clinton's own remarks seem to indicate that it's true."
Your analysis of the situtation seems a bit strange. Are you really that desperate to post your stories that you are willing to put words into Senator Clinton's mouth?
If you feel that their is such a strong message in Senator Clinton's, "own remarks" about this issue, you should look for a alternate career as a soothsayer.
Try some analysis based on fact as it is getting really difficult to see the difference between the way you report on things and the way that groups like "Fox News" does.
If I appear to be too harsh, it is only because you are representative of the same news source as Glenn Greenwald, and he seems objective and fact-based in everything he writes.
If you don't know what a decent journalistic standard should be, just follow his lead.
-
So what? Good for them.
They are doing their jobs. Unfortunately for them, Obama then went ahead and made the most thoughtful, searing and beautiful speeches on race in America since in at least 40 years if not ever.
I am not saying that the Wright thing didn't hurt Obama enormously. But, it did show how he could take a hit and come back with integrity, honesty and make his case to the American public. And isn't that what the Hillary campaign has been saying all along that he couldn't do?
I think the argument I would make (as an Obama supporter) to the supers is this:
"After watching that speech, it seems like the democratic party and its candidate just might be able to become something really special, something we haven't seen for a long time. Whether you like Obama or believe him or not, he inspires people and asks us (more than any politician has in a long time) to become something better than we are.
do you really want to give up that opportunity so that we can maybe get an administration that reflects the current thin congressional majority we have - a group that really hasn't made life much better for anyone and which can sometimes be referred to as republican lite?
I sure don't.
Yes, it will take some guts to make Obama the nominee. Just like it takes guts to talk about race in a way that's real. Just like it takes guts to talk to people in a way that doesn't pander through sound bites and us vs. them rhetoric.
But, if this party is to stand for something then let's make Obama the nominee and this time really make America be America again.