Letters to the Editor
-
@ Stewsburntmonkey
I'm glad you feel good about Obama and Ayers, too bad you completely ignored his much-more-difficult-to-dismiss relationship with Rev. Wright (the apparent black answer to religious bigots like Falwell, Roberts and Graham).
Too bad Obama has been ignoring it too. I'm not saying I agree with the people who care, but I am saying that if the Democrats hope to win in November, we certainly need to treat the votes of those people as important.
-
Hillary = this year's Bob Dole
Speaking of whining, Hillary reminds me of Bob Dole in the 1992 election: he thinks he should be president because it's his turn, dammit.
-
to -- Rosenkavalier
Actually, Obama did a major speech in response to the Wright flap.
It was well covered but you may have missed it.
I sure you can get a transcript.
-
@Rosenkavalier
I'm glad you feel good about Obama and Ayers, too bad you completely ignored his much-more-difficult-to-dismiss relationship with Rev. Wright (the apparent black answer to religious bigots like Falwell, Roberts and Graham).
Too bad Obama has been ignoring it too. I'm not saying I agree with the people who care, but I am saying that if the Democrats hope to win in November, we certainly need to treat the votes of those people as important.
As peeps says Obama did a major and well publicized speech directly address Rev. Wright. The fact that you seem to have completely missed it indicated you really don't a pay any attention to the campaigns. You appear to just be parroting the talking points of anti-Obama pundits. Sadly you have fallen right into trap of the idiots who seem to control political discourse in the country. They prey on the ignorance and disconnectedness of much of America and spew filth and lies, which sadly are all too often lapped up.
-
Tough coverage is fine, as long as it's intelligent
Criticizing the ABC debate moderators for their line of questioning and criticizing the generally trivia-dominated media coverage is not the same as criticizing them for being too tough on Obama. Obama, as well as Hillary and McCain, SHOULD have to answer tough questions. Each candidate has his or her weaknesses, after all. But those should be questions of substance, not forehead-smackingly stupid questions. Coverage should be tough, but intelligent.
Personally, I'm an Obama supporter, but even I can do better than those ABC jokers did at coming up with questions that would have put him on the spot. For example: Why does he promote ethanol subsidies so enthusiastically when ethanol is not really a net energy saver and in fact displaces corn from food markets? Yes, I know, his Illinois constituents include corn farmers who love the ethanol program, but still, this is a legitimate subject on which to challenge him.
My suggestion is that next time a debate seems to wander off into silly territory (flag pins????), someone should say something to the effect of: "This is disrepectful of the American people, who deserve a discussion of the issues."
-
Blah Blah Blah
You are so boring Alex. Get a grip and do something interesting for a change.
-
Obama's Whining
If Obama wasn't whining then what the hell do you call it? He's had a free ride for months because the discipline formerly known as journalism is now officially extinct. If there were ever any doubts, this primary has more than proven it. If he feels badly now just wait until the republican smear machine gets hold of him. Democratic voters should wake up and realize that this sexist, racist, fraud will wither as soon as election season begins. It's not too late to vote for the candidate who is actually qualified and has even been on the job and done outstanding work, Hillary Clinton. Of course you wouldn't know that about her since the so-called journalists are too busy sucking up to and taking it easy on Obama.
-
@TimBaird
If he feels badly now just wait until the republican smear machine gets hold of him. Democratic voters should wake up and realize that this sexist, racist, fraud will wither as soon as election season begins. It's not too late to vote for the candidate who is actually qualified and has even been on the job and done outstanding work, Hillary Clinton. Of course you wouldn't know that about her since the so-called journalists are too busy sucking up to and taking it easy on Obama.
So let me get this straight, we are supposed to dispose of the candidate who is winning and hand the nomination to the candidate who had blown a massive lead in support, money and recognition? We are supposed to believe the candidate who has built a massive grassroots organization and taken the lead away from the huge favorite can't win yet the candidate who has only sunk lower and lower in virtually every metric of electable as the race continues is the only one who can stand a chance in November? Wow. . .
-
And he wouldn't have cared they were trivial if they weren't hard for him
All the stuff the dirtbag wanted to keep closeted; his vulgar wife's long history of dispatriotism, his rabid minister, his weak resume, domestic terrorist ties, etc etc. were asked about.
They certainly weren't trivial to most people, but obviously they were hard questions the obamateur would have rather avoided.
As if the GOP would let any of that go by.
-
@ShawnWM
And he wouldn't have cared they were trivial if they weren't hard for him
I think that's projecting. That's what the mainstream media and stereotypical politicians would think; that doesn't seem to be what Obama thinks. Obama never tried to duck any of the questions. He answered them straightforwardly. He even gave a big speech about the Wright issue. I can't see any basis to state that he is afraid of these issues. He just thinks they are distractions, and rightly so.
-
Obama is pulling away from Clinton
The new Newsweek poll finds that among registered Democrats, Obama now leads Clinton 54% to 35%, her lowest showing yet.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721
Just a month ago, they were in a dead heat in the same poll.
Most Democrats now see Obama as more electable than Democrats in the AP-Yahoo poll.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24196209/
Even among folks who want to vote for Clinton, they are now supporting Obama because they feel Mrs. Clinton is too negative.
When Mrs. Clinton attacks, her numbers go down while his has risen.
My feeling is that many in PA who support Mrs. Clinton will end up voting for Obama simply to put her campaign out of its misery.