OK - I have been a loyal, BIG fan of Stephanie Miller, the liberal radio talk show host. Recently, though, her shows have been almost All Obama All the Time (doesn't the FCC have rules about equal time for candidates?!). She gives Sen. Clinton one good thing a day, and Edwards is lucky if he gets mentioned. Anyway, below are a series of letters I have written to her of late:
1/23/08: Here's the thing - the media did blessed little investigation into Bush's record when he was running for president in 2000. Except for a very few people, like Molly Ivins. Had they done so, they would have seen that EVERYTHING that has happened in the country nationally as a result of Bush (save maybe the Iraq war, though the case could be made), he did in Texas. Ivins was one of the few to document that.Clinton is right - Obama's record should be examined, TOO! He has missed 37% of Senate votes, to less than 10% for Clinton. The Sexual Abuse Act that passed in Illinois was NOT the one he sponsored! And he WAS friends with Rezko for over 17 years. Rezko DID help him get $ (had read an amt, but want to be accurate) off his homes! So, it wasn't just 5 hours of legal work Obama did as an Assistant.
All I am asking is that Obama be scrutinized the same way Clinton is. He IS a politician, same as her, and he showed that with his mud-slinging (which HE started, by the way) on Monday. I might add, he interrupted her CONSTANTLY when she was trying to talk. He appeared arrogant and petty, beginning with throwing out Clinton being on the board of Wal-Mart. That was clearly a ploy to elicit a ratchet emotional response. She was on the board between 1986 - 1992, for a company that was started in ARKANSAS, in which she was First Lady. And that was LONG before Wal-Mart had a bad name. Further, Obama DID say positive things about Reagan and the Republicans' ideas, despite his attempts to reframe that later. Clinton is right - when confronted, he claims he is being misunderstood. Hardly. As you like to say, there is VIDEO of him making his comments. So, please - stop cherry picking information/facts to suit Obama.
A faithful listener even though I support Clinton -
The Rev. Amy
1/28/08: OK - Obama only got 25% of the white vote here in SC. I live here, and that is what the newspapers reported. When Clinon won NH, everyone dismissed her win as being only because of white women (like our votes shouldn't count). It is just more of the double standard in the media between Obama and Clinton. If he wins by getting 80% of the black vote, and 25% of the white vote, then everything has changed. Huh???
By the way, Clinton got almost all 20% of the black vote, but hey - why bother mentioning that?I know you only do one good thing for Clinton a day, but really, this is ridiculous. You have Joe Scarborough and Margaret Carlsson REAMING Clinton for not calling Obama to congratulate him, just MINUTES after Olbermann reads a statement in which CLINTON SAID SHE CALLED OBAMA!!! You have Obama making snide comments about the Clintons in his acceptance speech. And Frank Rich misrepresenting the Clintons in his op-ed piece. That was just this weekend. This kind of crap happens to her constantly. You would never know by the media, and sadly, that includes YOU, that Clinton is actually LEADING the Delegate votes! (And Nevada has NOT apportioned their delegates yet, btw - they don't do that until April).
So, I have a stick up my butt today - I'm sick, and sick and tired of Clinton having to fight the candidates on BOTH sides, and the media. (By the way, what did Bill say that was so wrong about Obama? He DOES have the same voting record on Iraq as Clinton! Not that anyone seems to care...) I used to like Obama more, but after the snide comments, and unprovoked attacks on Clinton, not so much. And it would sure be nice ih he was vetted BEFORE becoming the nominee, should he do so, rather than AFTER when it is too late to change anything. Have we learned NOTHING from Bush's candidacy and the media's poor job? I am glad he brings hope to people, but given the mess this country is in from Bush and his minions, I, personally, want someone who has concrete plans to FIX it!OK - going back to bed now.
Still love you...The Rev. Amy
1/28/08: You keep mentioning the endorsements Obama has gotten this weekend, but NOT Hillary's! Here is another one, also from a Kennedy:
Statement from Kathleen Kennedy Townsend
"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision but I have made a different choice. While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary Clinton for over 25 years and have seen first hand how she gets results. As a woman, leader, and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president. She shares so many of the concerns of my father. Hillary has spent a lifetime speaking out on behalf of the powerless and working to alleviate poverty, in our country and around the world. I have seen her work up close and know she will be a great President. At this moment when so much is at stake at home and overseas, I urge our fellow Americans to support Hillary Clinton. That is why my brother Bobby, my sister Kerry, and I are supporting Hillary Clinton."And the American Nurses Association endorsed her, as well."
Just sayin'!
1/29/08: Hey, Steph and the Mooks -
Hate to rain on your constant Obama love-fest, but I thought Obama's response, or lack of one, to Hillary Clinton last night after the SOTU was quite telling. He received the endorsement from Ted, he had every opportunity to be a gracious winner, yet he purposely snubbed her when she shoke Ted's hand. That was just classless.
You have Joe Scarborough and Margaret Carlsson FALSELY attacking Clinton for not calling to congratulate Obama after SC, which she had done, yet I did not hear any of the MSNBC Obama cheerleaders making any negative remarks over this clear lack of grace.Like I said before, I used to like him more, but I have noticed he has little substance in his speeches, beautiful though they are (try reading the transcripts next time, and not listen to him giving it), and his barely (and not so barely), contained anger toward Clinton LONG before Bill went to SC (Obama was attacking Clinton in his speeches a good bit - she was NOT doing that to him) is what we have endured for the past 7 years. I, for one, do not want another president who is so quick to anger and lacking in manners. Here's a thought: Why don't you try actually LOOKING at what he has done as a senator, how many votes he has MISSED (over 37%, which seems pretty high to ME for a junior senator), and what he did in IL before annointing him the new savior of the country??? Quit dismissing his 20 yr relationship with Rezko as being nothing - if that was Clinton, or Edwards, you would be all OVER it!! In other words, vet Obama NOW, not AFTER he becomes the nominee, should that happen!
All of that is to say, could you please try to be a tad more objective toward Obama, Clinton, and Edwards?!?! Maybe even mention CLINTON'S endorsements from THREE Kennedys???
Still a listener, though it is getting harder...
The Rev. Amy
No comments:
Post a Comment