Letters to the Editor
-
He was dead on correct
This whole campaign has become nothing but..."The World Against the Clintons, Part 2." Well there are alot of people who really couldn't give a flying fuck about the Clintons or what this means to them or what they've supposedly done for the country or how this owed to her.
He was dead on correct. The clintons, once again, have been allowed to foul the water.
-
Except for the spittle...
...I agree with Chris. His central point of asking "Why do we care how the Clintons FEEL?" is perfectly valid.
And for all the Clintonians weeping about Hillary Haters, get a life. The woman has been despised by half of America for a decade or more. She should never have run for the nomination of my party.
And one need not be full of hate to oppose her nomination. She is not a Democrat, and I want a Democrat. There is only one left in contention.
-
loyalty
On a related note, I think this issue of loyalty runs deeper than just the Clinton insiders.
Regarding accusations or suggestions that there's a racist undercurrent in the Clinton campaign, many of her defenders around the blogs have invoked "all the Clintons have done for black people" as both evidence that there cannot be a racist undercurrent to the campaign as well as as a sort of rebuke of black Americans for disloyalty.
This is an observation, not an accusation, so please receive it as such.
It does seem, though, that perhaps Clinton attracts the sort of people who really do value loyalty more highly than those that Obama attracts.
Does this ring true to anyone else?
-
Mistakes and mistakes
I had a laugh -- well, maybe just a smirk -- when I read that Matthews had said this: "There's a larger globe out there of people, 350 million Americans." As any moderately numerically literate citizen knows, the population of the US is just a hair over 300 million. Where'd he get the extra 50 million? But then I listened to the audio and, wouldn't you know it, he actually does say 300 million. Whoever did the transcript heard it wrong (and is probably ill-informed about the US...).
But then, Matthews really DOES say this: "We're stuck in Iraq; 4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons." What?! I'm no fan of either Clinton and never have been, but that's the sleaziest attack-by-association I've ever heard. What is the logic here? Bush is a politician; the Clintons are politicians; therefore we're stuck in Iraq because of decisions by politicians "like the Clintons"? I'd like to see Matthews say to Bush's face that "we're stuck in Iraq because of your bad decision." That would take a miniscule amount of guts. But attacking Clinton over something Bush did (which Matthews will never directly criticize Bush over) is simply rancid.
-
More on "toting"
"Toting"? Big Bill was "toting a beard"? Was he carrying it in a sack, or what?
FWIW, Bill may now have his mojo back, but during the 30 day legislative session in Santa Fe, he seemed unusually irritable and hard to work with. I guess coming down after a hard but unsuccessful Presidential campaign can do that, and I wouldn't begrudge him his thick luxurious beard - regardless of whether he carries it in a bag or - here's an idea - wears it.
(Don't take this personally, Alex ;-)
-
-- saintzak paraphrased
Whatever it is, it is the Clintons fault.
Funny. That also paraphrases the GOP for the last 15 years.
-
Chris Matthews Needs to Know...
Chris Matthews needs to be very, very clear about a few things: 4000 US Servicemen (and untold thousands of Iraqi civilians) are dead not because of “the decision of politicians like the Clintons.” They are dead because of the decision of a politician named George W. Bush, ( about whom Matthews said on the day Bush declared Mission Accomplished “He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics” and “And it doesn't matter if Democrats try to ridicule it. It's stunning, and it speaks for itself.”)
These men and women are also dead because of the support of politician like John McCain, to whom Matthews recently exclaimed, “Senator, you know you’re in my heart!”
Finally, these 4000 are also dead because of the complete abdication of the pursuit of truth and reporting of the facts by a large circle of so-called journalists like Chris Matthews who prize their status as court jesters within the circle of the powerful over real reporting and analysis. They have blood on their Armanis.
-
If you want to put the media on the hook for Iraq
And I do, then I don't see how you give the Congress a pass. Constitutionally, they are the ones with the power to declare war. And they did authorize the use of force.
-
@Uncle Fester
Yes, Congress shares some of the blame. But "Congress" is composed of some 535 (536 is you count Dick Cheney, sigh)people, not "the Clintons."
-
re: Clintons and Iraq (and a host of other minor characters)
Well, the last poster failed to mention the Congress. They just wanted to blame Bush and the Media. Which is backwards to me. The War power is in Congress. Maybe it is necessary to elect a constitutional law professor to the Highest office. The congress should not be the rubberstamp it's become under the Bush Administration.
So I hold Biden, Dodd, Edwards, and Hillary Clinton responsible. And I think the pro-war vote for each of them was a drag on their campaigns.
Hillary Clinton is the last one standing, aside from McCain. I'm certainly willing to send a pass to Bill Clinton if he counseled not to vote for the war.
-
Chris Matthews suddenly becomes Chris Rock
Check out Mathews doing stand up (or is it sit-down). I'm not sure which are the funniest lines from him:
"people like us"
Yes, Chris Matthews, making what he makes for the years he's made it, is just "like us"--you know "regular Americans". Not to mention the "billions" of other people out there he's "just like". Yep, somewhere a Bangladeshi is pumping his fist in the air going "Yeah Chris! Yeah! Tell it to the Man! You and me, bro, you and me!"
Or is it citing an email (an email!) from the Washington Times (the Times!)
Or is it arguing that by paying attention to the Clintons' sensibilities they're ignoring the "American Experience" of loving Barak. Though of course one wonders about all those millions of people who voted against him and for Hillary. That's a lot of sensibility watching.
Or is it the so-self-parody-SNL-couldn't-write-it of Mattews (Matthews!) calling something a "sitcom". Does he even watch his own show?