Letters to the Editor
-
@ David Blixt
Hillary Clinton is not nearly as slick as Crafty Barack who convinces the ill-informed that he alone owns the mantel of change agent when he has not accomplished anything; who rescues his flagging campaign in South Carolina by convincing African-Americans that Hillary Clinton is racist because she recognizes the importance of an effective President (see LBJ); who convinces younger Democrats that the years with Bill Clinton in the White House were a disaster for this country while borrowing the tactics of Karl Rove; who makes a big speech about race to save his political butt while convincing liberal supporters that only he truly understands race. At this critical time in the capmaign, he pretends that he does not want to make race an issue after it has helped him to almost secure the Democratic nomination.
Despite this incredible level of slickness, He is still pretending to be the uniter. Crafty Barack Obama sets a new standard for slickness.
Barack Obama is the dream of a marketing campaign, without substance and without accomplishment. He has used very little to get pretty damn far, and you want to tell me that he is not the slick one. Hillary Clinton is much more informed and ready to assume the role of President, yet ninety percent of the MSM is against her. How is that slick? She is the real deal and she shows it every time she addresses an important issue of national significance. She may lose the posturing battles with the Obama campaign, but her quality is beginning to show through to an American Public that responds initially to the celebrity type but eventually tires of the show when reality hits.
With a disastrous Bush foreign policy and even worse Bush economic policies, reality has hit, and I think more and more potential and past Obama supporters will begin to understand that we need a real president who can get things done, not a pumped up fantasy. I only hope that it is not too late for the Democratic Party.
-
So much nastiness
Between Clinton and Obama supporters in this thread and others.
I don't get it.
I support Obama, but if Clinton gets the nom, I'll support her. I'll support the Goodyear Blimp if it's running against McCain.
Sorry, folks. Neither Clinton nor Obama are the bad guys here. Why can't you remember that? For that matter, why can't their campaigns remember that?
Eight years of Republican rule have totally screwed up this country, if not the whole world. Republicans are the bad guys.
COULD WE ALL REMEMBER THAT? In-fighting sucks!
-
@ lolcait
Read it and weep. If the superdelegates do their jobs, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
And two weeks ago, it was showing that Obama would beat McCain in the general. And two weeks before that, it was showing that Hillary or Obama would beat McCain in the general.
The election's not for another 32 weeks, dear. There's going to be a lot more back-and-forth on this. Let's see how Obama does when he's only running against one opponent, hmm?
-
@ lolcait
Obama can't and won't win a general election
Read it and weep. If the superdelegates do their jobs, Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee:
Wow! That's nearly as big as the lead Kerry had in 2004 this far out, and remember how easily he won?
(Let me guess -- you're one of the folks who dismisses any of the projections that have shown Obama beating McCain while Clinton loses to him. Projections of the general at this point are mildly entertaining but worth neither tears nor cheers, no matter who's "ahead" in them.)
-
Thanks, Xrandadu
I hope you keep adding to this list, and I hope you keep posting the updated version.
-
Hutman
I think you have to add Carville's self-congratulatory non-apology on his Judas Iscariot remarks about Bill Richardson. The message is: anyone who supports Obama over Clinton (especially someone who OWES the Clintons and would be nothing without them...like Richardson) is a traitor (as unto Jesus)and they will not hesitate to label them as such.
Disturbing. I would have thought that the Democrats as a whole do "owe" the Clintons some loyalty and respect for the good things they did accomplish during the nineties. But this "owing" extending to the personal decision of who to support for President is off the mark big time. And part of the politics of personal destruction that I keep hoping that Democrats will stop waging against one another in this long march toward the nomination.
-
@ RDisdier
COULD WE ALL REMEMBER THAT? In-fighting sucks!
I sometimes wonder how much of the "in-fighting" here and elsewhere is written by people who are neither Clinton supporters nor Obama supporters. I have a sneaky suspicion that it's true of most of the really nasty stuff.
-
@ won'tgetfooledagain
"Crafty Barack?" Really? That's the best you can do? That's probably the lamest attempt at a derogatory nickname I've ever seen.
Here's a few hints: Rhyming ones usually work pretty well, like "Tricky Dick" or "Shrill Hil." A bit of assonance can help as well, as in "Slick Willie." And sometimes a great one just falls in your lap. I think Molly Ivins' nickname for Dubya, "Shrub," is probably the best political nickname that can be used in polite company.
Anyway, hope this helps. Now get back in there and go get 'em, slugger!
-
@ bearpaw1
I'm ashamed to admit that I'm a legit Obama supporter who does get carried away. But I'll be back on my meds soon, I promise.
-
AKA Smith
The problem with the electability argument is that it's based on fortune-telling and mind-reading.
In 1992, couldn't you have plausibly said Bill Clinton wasn't electible because of his adultery scandals?
In 2002, didn't Democrats such as Hillary Clinton vote for the Iraq War with an eye towards their electability in a future presidential campaign?
In 2004, didn't we pick John Kerry because he was supposedly the most electible of the batch?
To say that we should dump Obama and support Hillary because she is more electible is nonsense because (1) by the sole empirical measure on which electability can be determined so far - getting votes - Clinton has shown herself inferior to Obama, and (2) it presumes that I should defer to the opinion of other people in making my own decisions ("I personally think Obama would be a better president than either of the other two, but all those bigots and mindless Fox patriots out there won't vote for him, so I should vote for the candidate I conjecture they would prefer.")
On the spurious grounds of electability, should we have nominated Edwards instead of either of these two? Couldn't you plausibly say "Hey, America will never elect a woman president (particularly not this woman) and America will never elect a black president, let's vote for the handsome white man from the South?" I have colleagues who have actually used that as their rationale for supporting Edwards and who think the Democrats lost the election as soon as Edwards dropped out the race.
I guess we've learned from this Jeremiah Wright scandal that an African-American can be a serious contender for the presidency, as long as he doesn't go to a black church or have any traces of an African-American cultural identity.
Personally, I'd like to roll the dice and see what happens. Let the process play itself out. Life's a gamble. You'll never win unless you try.