Letters to the Editor
-
@ Fooled
Interesting how you pull the least important thread from my piece to respond to me. But back on topic...
Senator Clinton's untenable position is one for which she alone is responsible. If you hold Senator Obama responsible for injecting race into the campaign (something I vehemently disagree with, but fine), then you must apply that same standard to your own candidate. The injection of Republican talking-points, red-phone fear-mongering, deception about the other candidate's positions - this is all behaviour Senator Clinton's campaign has engaged in. But worst of all is her lack of leadership.
She contends so often that she is "Ready" that it begs a response from Shakespeare: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
You cite her ability to lead. I contend that if she had shown that ability at any point over the last three months, she would be ahead now in popular votes and delegates. Fighting is not leading. It calls for something more. Something that, right or wrong, the electorate sees more of in Seantor Obama.
-
"And monkeys could fly out of my butt"
We're into revisiting the Clinton 90s here, right?
-
@ Fooled
Your comment about Jesse Jackson being an admirable comparison is transparent in its disingenuousness. The context of President Clinton's remarks were to diminish, not enhance, Senator Obama's win in SC.
I'll let Joan Walsh say it for me:
"On Bill Clinton's remarks: I give up. I have to agree with Glenn Greenwald here: It was singularly graceless for Clinton to greet Obama's victory with the observation that Jackson won South Carolina twice, too. Whether you agree with the pundits that the former president is to blame for the sometimes racially bitter tenor of the South Carolina race (and I still don't), it was a time for Clinton to be magnanimous, and he was small. And it will forever be harder to defend him, as I have, from charges of "racial coding" in his criticism of Obama." - Joan Walsh, 1.27.08
-
@ blissed out
injection of Republican talking-points:
The Obama supporters have recycled Republican talking points, such as the "blue dress," by a standing office holder no less, and how hated she is and unelectable. I have heard mentions of Whitewater as well by the Obama campaign. Never mind that it represents the most overinvestigated non-crime in history.
Injecting race:
The history of the run up to South Carolina is irrefutable.
red-phone fear-mongering:
All that the ad asked was who is ready to answer the call at 3 AM, when there is something going on in the world that the president has to respond to. Once again, if you cannot provide a satisfactory answer to questions of presidental leadership, turn the question into an unreasonable inquiry.
Incredibly crafty move by the crafty one:
Create a disturbance about someone going through Obama's passport files when the one going through the files works for a company whose CEO is an Obama supporter. No wonder the public first found out about Obama's passport file being searched before we found out that Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's were also violated.
Hands down - Crafty Obama wins the slickness sweepstakes.
-
@ W.E.S
I'm curious to know-what are your goals for the country? What's important to you as a voter? Ever lost your job? Ever have to go to an emergency room and pay out of pocket and wait 10 hours because of a case of strep throat? Every lose a loved one in combat?
Is this a beauty contest to you? An opportunity to pass some time in your basement?
-
@ doloresflower: Talk About A Stretch!
What is just astonishing to me about Obama's followers is that they cannot and will not accept that there is HARD evidence about Obama using "race-baiting" as a tactic, when he did not win in New Hampshire; and it has been used repeatedly by his campaign to smear Bill and Hillary Clinton.
So, the "chills" you get from hearing James Carville saying something that he stands by just flies in the face of evidence on-the-ground about Obama's stealth and smear tactics against Hillary Clinton.
I understand that he is *your* candidate of choice. But it would be nice if there were just a tad more realism...
-
Please
Of course in today's age of endless streams of information we will find plenty of articles that are about how hard it will be for Clinton to win. I think it misses the point to simply show that, indeed, we can find such articles.
To me the important point is that the media doesn't really pursue the story of why Hilary's "heroic" effort to pull off the improbable is covered as if it is a selfless effort in democracy. Maybe. But imagine if Barak was in her position if improbabily and speaking as if he was only doing this for the sake of America...
-
@ Fooled
Clearly I'm shouting at the rain. It's interesting that you remark how complex the world is, yet then refuse to look at nuance or context.
Nevertheless, an example:
I did indeed hear David Axelrod bring up Whitewater. It was on ABC's THIS WEEK, a few weeks back. He was opposite Howard Wolfson. Wolfson was repeating the name Rezko, hammering again and again that there were questions Senator Obama had not answered (in an eerie imitation of Ken Starr, whom he would later accuse Obama's people of emulating).
Axelrod said something to the effect of, "I don't think Senator Clinton wants to be bringing up shady land deals."
Cheap shot, I agree. But differently phrased, it is an interesting point: Does Senator Clinton feel, after all she went through with baseless alegations, that this is the kind of issue she wants to raise? Is that what she took away from the experience, how best to imitate it? Is that the kind of candidate she wants to be?
This is what I mean by her side adopting Republican tactics. Senator Obama has yet to bring up the Hsu trial, for example, which the Republicans are waiting to pounce on. Not because there's a story there, but because they can make it seem like there is one. Just like Wolfson was doing with Rezko.
If Senator Obama were the candidate you beleive him to be, we would be hearing a great deal more about Hsu. Instead, he is asking about her taxes - something she has asked of her opponents in the past.
Why is it that Senator Clinton's supporters hold their candidate to a lower standard than they do the others?
As I say, I don't expect to convince you, or even for you to budge far enough for us to really discuss this. You seem to believe Senator Obama is a trickster god, Loki reincarnated. The things you ascribe to him are part of a grand pattern. Whereas I believe Senator Clinton is just a politician, one who is both desperate and disorganized, and a little petty. I don't put my candidate on a pedastal - you're the one doing that.
Obama is no god. His feet are not clay but flesh. He is flawed. He should have gotten ahead of the Wright story. He should have worked harder earlier to win the blue collar voters. He should have made the point that the popular vote counts in a caucaus are much higher than actually reported, therefore letting people see that his vote count is in fact much, much higher than what is generally reported.
Most of all, he should not have let Senator Clinton define leadership as experience. She has set the tone for this campaign, and he is playing catch-up. Remember the debate where they were asked what their greatest flaw was, and he answered honestly? How the next day she and Senator Edwards used it against him? How was that politcal savvy? It was honest, and it looked that way.
I'm spending much too much time on this. But before I go let me say that I prefer the campaign he is trying to run to the one she is in charge of. Leadership shows it worth, even in this.