much is some of what I hear from Hillary's supporters. I am of the
view that we have two superior candidates, but I'm hearing things from
Hilllary supporters that scare me: and that sound like they are coming
from the RNC or Fox News "spin." Blaming the media for a supposed
witch hunt against Hillary, subtly distributing the "Obama is a Muslim"
tripe, etc.
I suppose there are a lot of Reagan Democrats out there, and many
support HIllary (which is good), but it sorta scares me to hear such
negativity, esp. when THE PRIZE is to win the White House for the
Democrats in 2008. This election is larger than any particular
candidate: a woman's right to choose, the future of the Supreme Court,
the lives being wasted in Iraq, the money being flushed down a rathole
in Iraq, the deficits, the treatment of the most vulnerable in our
society, the intolerance and bigotry, etc., etc., etc.
Obama and Clinton are just the supporting players in a MUCH MUCH larger
and more important three-act play.
--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, Gabrielle Latham <gabrielled2003@...>
wrote:
>
> Nice column, but again Krugman is wrong. It is being slung from both
sides, not just Obama's supporters. I have read on here and I know
Clinton supporters who have said it is Clinton or no one for them. Sorry
but I for one think most OP-ED pieces are good for nothing more than to
line the cat litter box. He even stated that he wasn't even going to try
to be evenhanded.
>
> All he has to do is join this group and he will see garbage remarks
coming from both sides, with some of us trying to referee and stating
that we need to be united no matter who the nominee is.
>
> OM for Peace om4peace@... wrote:
> Op-Ed Columnist
> Hate Springs Eternal By PAUL KRUGMAN
> February 11, 2008 In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight
Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent's vice
president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he
warned, was in danger of becoming "a land of slander and scare; the
land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and
hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to
win. This is Nixonland."
> The quote comes from "Nixonland," a soon-to-be-published
political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick
Perlstein, the author of "Before the Storm." As Mr. Perlstein
shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed
become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.
> And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems
to be turning into Nixonland.
> The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the
face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and
appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that
Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care,
and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his
own efforts). Both have broad support among the party's grass roots
and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
> Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind
the other if he or she gets the nod.
> Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
> I won't try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see
is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody.
I'm not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems
dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We've already
had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight
Suit? We really don't want to go there again.
> What's particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters
seem happy with the application of "Clinton rules" — the
term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news
organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter
how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
> The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press
covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a
multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any
evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons' part, yet the
"scandal" became a symbol of the Clinton administration's
alleged corruption.
> During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton's entirely reasonable
remark that it took L.B.J.'s political courage and skills to bring
Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of
outrageous denigration of Dr. King.
> And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC,
after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother's
campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do
— asked, "doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being
pimped out in some weird sort of way?" Mr. Shuster has been
suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark
was part of a broader pattern at the network.
> I call it Clinton rules, but it's a pattern that goes well beyond
the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during
the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn't say
(no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as
proof of his alleged character flaws.
> For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama's favor. But his
supporters should not take comfort in that fact.
> For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama
supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to
see her win in November.
> For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the
nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton
rules. Democrats always do.
> But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the
country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are
all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care
about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred
unacceptable.
> One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came
last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning
the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It's
a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not
become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles
that matter more than short-term political advantage.
> I'd like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with
strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect
their opponents and would support them in the general election.
>
>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogi\
n&pagewanted=print
>
> or at Truthout:
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021208L.shtml
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________
> Joy & Chris Green ~Omaha for Peace
> http://members.cox.net/om4peace/mainnews.html ß LATEST NEWS FEEDS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gabrielle (Gabe to my friends)
> Do not enter into a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
>
> Join with me on Facebook to pledge your vote to Barack Obama
>
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/view_cause/60533?recruiter_id=13266649&h\
=shu
>
> Click below to make a donation to Barack
> Help me reach the goal!
> http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/texasgabe
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder