Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Hillary Clinton speaks out on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and the Obama campaign isn't happy.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • @ Kansas O'Flaherty: How About Some Proof?

    You keep headlining this story in your posts - and your headlines are getting longer - but where is the proof? A 'story' written by Barbara Ehrenreich? Why don't you ask some of the prominent progressive women's movement leaders in Washington what they REALLY think about Barbara Ehrenreich? She's not the "feminist" she's been touted to be. Using this story as "proof" of such outrageous allegations is like using Phyllis Schlafly to talk about women's equality.

  • Stop Blaming Hillary for Obama's problems

    Someone on an editorial board asked her if she would have stayed with a pastor who made such comments, and she answered. She did not bring it up.

    Most moderate voters who decide elections find Rev. Wright's remarks and Obama's staying with him as his Pastor for so long, inexcusable, and crossing a line of unacceptability - regardless of race issues.

    In other words, if you stay with a Pastor who says such things for so long, not enough people will trust you or vote for you to become President of the United States.

    It's that simple.

  • @ Sajwan & GezelligTexas: Great Posts!

    Sajwan:

    Pulling up these quotes must have kept you busy! But it is an indicator of how ugly things have gotten.

    GezelligTexas:

    I LOVE your template. I still have tears in my eyes from laughing.

  • Uber-Liberals Use The Nuclear Option

    To read the posts in this thread one would think that Hillary Clinton had committed murder. I would repeat some of Sajwan's observations about the language that has been used on both sides, but s/he has already done a magnificent job of ferreting out the excesses.

    Using Hillary Clinton's answer to a legitimate question about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, or the greatly exaggerated recall of her trip to Bosnia as "grounds" that she needs to be stopped, or removed from the Democratic Party, or as indications that she is a Republican are the equivalent of using nuclear weapons to get at a rat infestation.

    Red_gti made the cogent observation (in this thread) that the hardcore Democrats will not be moved one way or the other from their support of Clinton or Obama. It is voters in the middle who will ultimately make the determination. These voters don't sit around all day and blog or read Salon posts. They are the "lunch bucket" Democrats (aka moderates) who live and work in centrist America. Whether the uber-left likes it or not, them's the facts. There is a reason that Hillary Clinton has done well among these voters: she is a moderate Democrat and isn't going to stray from tried-and-true centrist policies and actions. At the end of the day these voters will forgive her "exaggerations", because they know that she "gets it" re: their concerns -- the "kitchen table" issues.

  • @ljwalker53

    ljwalker53: "At the end of the day these voters will forgive her "exaggerations", because they know that she "gets it" re: their concerns -- the "kitchen table" issues."

    Why do you put "exaggerations" in quotes?

    It's obvious, to me, that Obama is just as interested in "kitchen table" issues as Clinton is.

  • jwalker

    You can't ride a straw horse, or argue with a straw man. There is no such thing, essentially, as a true left wing in America. There hasn't been for 25 or 30 years. The country has done two key things politically: disengaged, and allowed the active remainder to lurch to the right. Far right. Yes, fascist right. False patriotism, aggressive militarism, tied to huge military/industrial interests. That's fascism, not funny moustaches and goosestepping Italians. So, you start from a false premise. What needs to happen is that many more Americans need to engage in the process. That's part of the Obama phenomenon. I was not part of it to begin with. I did not anticipate it; neither did Hillary. She's been blacksmacked, but it is NOT about race. It's about galvinizing the inert potential of the electorate. Maybe it's not enough. Maybe we're done, and the K street whores and the Halliburtons and the deal makers have it wrapped up. If so, Hillary's perfect. She knows them, how they operate, and is well versed- perhaps too much so- in negotiating with ethical lepers. I don't buy it. A much more revolutionary process has to happen, and it won't happen in one news cycle, one election cycle, or, for us older folk, even in our life cycle. But we damn well better start. Hillary is smart, well educated, and transcendently ordinary. She inspires virtually no one who is not already on the bus. We need a jet. Park the damned bus, get off, and take a chance. Our founders certainly did. Perhaps they had spine that we lack. We'll see. Again, for the umpteenth time, I will vote for Clinton if it comes to that.

  • Coddling Archie Bunker

    There is no point in trying to woo the Archie Bunkers of the country. They are called "Republicans" and they are not going to vote for Hillary even if she piles on the Scary Black Pastor a week after the the right's feeding frenzy.

    Eff 'em, they aren't going to vote for us anyways. As Harry Truman once said, given the choice between a Republican and a Republican-Lite, the voters will pick the Republican every time.

    But no, keep doing what you're doing, Hillary. Keep doubling down. You too, Coronation Cultists! America is moving to the Right...Catch the wave!

  • @ tom payne: 'Uber-Liberal'

    You may see this as a strawman, but the most viscerally active in derailing Clinton's campaign is the far-left, if the blogosphere represents an indication and I have no reason to think otherwise, particularly since both Democratic candidates (but Obama, in particular) are actively appealing to it. OTOH, this shift is no doubt a response to 7-plus years of Shrub. And, yes, I agree: we need a major shift to get us beyond the disaster we are currently in. Yet, in spite of that necessity, a majority of voters don't see the world in these terms and are centrist in nature, as 20-plus years of previous elections has shown. Maybe this one will be the big break; I'm just not optimistic that the change will be abrupt, or that voters will move abruptly in that direction. We'll see. BTW: I would never support John McCain!!