Letters to the Editor
-
@madam Bill Again
I confess I don't really know what Bill is up to. I think it must be a helluva thing to be an ex-president, an ex-most-powerful-man-in-the-world. Maybe he's having more fun now wheeling and dealing and doesn't really want to go back to the whitehouse and live in a fishbowl. I also think his timing is off and he is a little stale. He's been dealing with big business types and not retail politics. Maybe they that thought that Back to the Future was enough of a campaign strategy. Maybe they liked the concept more than the public, since they got top billing.
I've been so hoodwinked and bamboolzed (heh) it's hard for me to tell who started what and when with respect to the AA community. I do think the LBJ comment was stupid (have opined at length on same).
I'm sure there will be some pretty big history to be told some time after we're long gone. Interesting times.
-
@ Uncle Fester: Politics
On the one hand, you guys want to tell me Hillary is the battle tested hardnosed experienced realpolitik candidate. On the other hand, she is poor victim Hillary, whose hands are lillywhite, pristine and untainted by politics, a victim, her campaign doomed by unfair sexism, racism, and ageism instead of strategic blunders and staff losers like Mark Penn.
I have a question: why is it necessary to continue the "double standards" you just derided me for? Every time you say something like this (above) re: "...poor victim Hillary...a victim" you fall into the same drop-door that you seemingly want to avoid. I have posted here and elsewhere specifics about why I believe the media has been unfair toward Hillary Clinton in this campaign. I have provided some analysis, links, specific tactics and language about sexism. I have never said she was a "victim". That does seem to be the WOD among Obama followers, however. So how about this: Can we have a truce on this word and characterization of Clinton? You seem to be a reasonable sort.
I happen to think she is the former: hard-nosed, experienced Hillary. Both campaigns are campaigning and belly-bumping. Anybody who pretends otherwise is foolish.
Right-o! And my posts here and elsewhere are designed to show that side of Barack Obama, as well.
-
@ ljwalker53 Fester has already posted on this before and before and before
I don't see how NH going first has anything to do with Obama. NH going first is a tradition that has gone on far longer than this campaign cycle. The dustup with FL & MI started way before Obama was on anybody's radar. Way before his win in IA. I really don't get your implication here at all. Please explain.
And I'm sorry, some of us know how to google and don't rely on Salon as our primary source of news. The FL & MI revotes are not as you describe, it's dubious to blame Obama for this mess as you attempt.
There's a lot to the MI revote. Here's an on the ground opinion:
KALAMAZOO -- Holding a do-over Democratic presidential primary in Michigan on June 3 would be impossible under current election rules because the voting machines would still be locked from the May 6 election, Kalamazoo County Clerk Tim Snow said. [...] State law requires ballot counts to stay locked in machines for 30 days after an election to allow time for recounts. [..] ``We'd be basically having three elections going on at the same time -- May, June and August.''
http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-28/1205851812198890.xml&coll=7
Here's a link with more detail on issues raised by the Obama campaign:
[...]
Voter Disqualification
Although Michigan has always run open elections, which allow voters to vote in whatever primary they prefer, voters who participated in the Republican primary in January could not vote in the June election under the proposed law. This class of voters includes Democrats and Independents who chose not to vote in the invalid Democratic primary at the time because the majority of active candidates did not appear on the ballot and the results would not be accepted under party rules.
This provision raises a significant constitutional question and, along with it, the prospect for litigation that would undermine the perceived legitimacy of the election and bring preparations to a standstill under circumstances in which such delay is effectively fatal. The claim here could also be presented to the party, under party rules, with a similar effect of putting the election and its results in serious question.
The burden on voters here is one of complete disqualification—they cannot participate in the Democratic primary in June if they voted in the January Republican primary. Their claim of a violation of their rights would rest on the fact that that the state "changed the rules in the middle of the game." These voters' choice was entirely reasonable in the circumstances: there was no valid Democratic primary available to them at the time, and they could not know that, when their choice was made, that they were disqualifying themselves from participating in a re-run Democratic primary this year that they could know would be held.
Moreover, the state will have difficulty justifying this disenfranchisement by reference to any legitimate state interest. [...]
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_new_memo_obama_camp_effecti.php#more
-
@lj Ok Then
And my posts here and elsewhere are designed to show that side of Barack Obama, as well. So how about this: Can we have a truce on this word and characterization of Clinton?
We can't do that, there would be nothing to argue about! I would color myself semi-reasonable. I'll try to carve out an exception when replying to your posts. I do get the impression (true or not) that many posters here think Hillary is getting victimized. It drives me nuts because I don't see her in that way at all. Another poster said she had this "kooky taoist" view that Hillary was on a journey of self-discovery. I tend to agree. She should just lose Bill and Mark Penn, and I'd bet things would improve.
But my perception of some of your posts is more along the lines of trying to undermine Obama rather than illustrate that he's doing the same shit as Hillary. I will refrain from a measuring contest. I'm sure someone else can inform me of their results. Asking for a change in politics doesn't mean suddenly playing by the Marquis de Queensbury rules. Not very many people are asking if Obama can take a punch anymore. Our current politics is shoot first and ask questions later. Flipping that around would be a big upgrade.