Sunday, February 03, 2008

A letter to the LA Times

I've received permission from its author to post the following letter she wrote to the LA Times after they endorsed Obama. I thought it was excellent and wanted to share it with others. I hope anyone reading it who, like me and the letter's author, are shocked at the LA Times' endorsement of Obama will take the time to send their own letter to the Times expressing your feelings. Here it is (and I've edited out the author's last name):

"To LA Times:

I take issue with the fact that the LA TIMES endorsed Senator Barack Obama for President.

Obama has a total of two years experience in the Senate and has proven time and again that he is NOT ready to lead on Day One as Senator Clinton is.

Even your own endorsement points out that Obama's not voting for Iraq was the right move. You're kidding right? You realize he was not even in the Senate at the time so therefore he could not have voted one way or the other. You state that he claimed he was always against it, but in 2004, he said he "agreed with George Bush", so really, what you are saying is that HE LIED. Obama has voted the SAME as Hillary each and every time when it comes to Iraq. If he did not want to support the war, then why did he continually vote to fund it?

Obama claims he was against the war - BUT - it's always easier to claim you were against something that is NOW unpopular when in fact you did not have to make the decision.

Obama's true weakness is his lack of experience and substance on the issues.

His words are not actions, they are only good speeches. Obama claims to be supportive of Gay and Lesbian rights. Yet, he traveled around South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, the anti-gay gospel singer, pro-claiming that he was a Christian. How does this fit in keeping current with GLBT issues? Does anyone really believe Obama will fight for gay rights?

I take issue with the fact that your newspaper believes that Obama has the corner on "Change." Electing the first woman President, who stands up fully for Democratic values is a HUGE change.

If Obama wants to CHANGE Washington, then why does he side with the biggest Washington Insider of them all, Ted Kennedy, and 50 or so Ex-Clinton aides - is that really "Change"

Your endorsement is a direct slap in the face to all women who are more than qualified to step into a position on day one, yet are overlooked by the younger, less experienced candidate.

Most appalling is the Times lack of research on the background of this candidate and stance on OTHER issues, instead of a singular issue. His own newspaper, the Chicago Tribune points out the ramifications of a potential Obama Presidency in their remarks:

"Obama's association with alleged influence-peddler Tony Rezko. If Obama had dealt with the Rezko issue forthrightly long ago, it might rank in public memory with Clinton's remarkable success in cattle futures.

Instead, as we've said, Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.

On e more time, Senator:

You need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until you do, the journalistic scrubbing and opposition research will intensify. You should have recognized Rezko as a political seducer of young talent. But given that you've not been accused of any crime or ethical breach, your Rezko history is not a deal-breaker."

Because the news media has failed in examining this candidates background, it is my firm belief that the Democrats will lose the Whitehouse if Obama is elected. Once Obama's relationship with Tony Rezko comes out into the open, we will all be left wondering why we didn't know this in advance.

Change is a word that requires Action. Hillary Clinton is the Agent of Change that will bring about that Action.


Nancy [name removed]

P.S. I am cancelling my subscription to the Los Angeles Time due to this endorsement.

No comments:

Blog Archive