Letters to the Editor
JackSparx
Published Letters: 403 Editor's Choice: 16
-
Billcap, you are not a racist!
[Read the article: Obama takes Wyoming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I mean, there is no basis for saying you're a racist. As far as I know.
More to the point, I haven't called you a racist. Read my posts. You have called me an ass, which is OK.
Here we have candidate who holds the lead. His opponent suggests that he accept the Vice-Presidency, and many suggest that he step aside. As Tom Daschle pointed out, that may be a first in the long history of Presidential campaigns. What is the logic.
You say it's not race. But your alternative, age, doesn't hold up--Obama is not that young, and Clinton is not too old to run again. Others say, it's experience. But our experience with Clinton is mostly bad: war, Patriot Act, etc. Others say: it's the caucus system. But we've always had caucuses, even when Bill Clinton was elected. Why aren't they any good this year? Finally people say, it's not about numbers. Who cares if Obama has the lead. But aren't elections, and democracy, ultimately about numbers? Wouldn't Hillary claim victory if she got just one vote more?
Sorry, but this discussion reminds me of the history of denying blacks the right to vote. It was never about directly denying the vote. It was poll taxes. It was grandfather clauses. It was a thousand technicalities.
Black voters, young voters, pick your category, don't owe the Clintons a damned thing, and certainly not the nomination.
Why can't Clinton simply win the nomination like Obama is trying to do?
-
A Rube Goldberg contraption that is fascinating to watch
[Read the article: More on Clinton camp infighting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm fascinated how often the Clinton campaign themes start with something Bill Clinton mouths off in public, followed by a scramble by the rest of the campaign to get in line with the message. It's very reminiscent of the disorganization of the Clinton I administration, but not very much like the Bill's own sleek campaigns for president.
THe difference is interesting because it probably shows the extent to which Bill Clinton himself deferred to his War Room. When Bill actually took over, chaos ensued and the message wandered (until he got some tough chiefs of staff). A lot of what we praise Bill Clinton for had little to do with him. He was a hollow vessel.
But not quite. There are times when he settles on an instinct that gets the ball rolling. He's a gambler personality. Losing his bets in South Carolina, winning them in Texas.
But, shouldn't this article be about Hillary? She also defers to the machine, but her machine has too many moving parts and consumes too many doughnuts. It's difficult to imagine how "her" campaign predicts that her own administration would function.
Or dysfunction. Despite the weird SNL skit last Saturday, it seems more likely that Hillary would be the one making the 3AM phone call. But to whom?
-
@joejoe Kate Zernike is male?
[Read the article: More on Clinton camp infighting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'll be damned. I suppose I can see how a journalist named "Patrick Healy" might be prejudiced in favor of O'Bama.
"Oh Alex, thank God you brought this up again. We certainly need more white male journalists trying to slam Clinton -- actually we need more white males in general trying to bring her down...there's just not enough of us out there dude. You should be proud. I read your articles and think...he must be proud -- and so must his wife and daughters (got any of those?)
-
Why we need a tough Commander in Chief, and what that means
[Read the article: War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Garry Wills short piece in the NY TImes awhile back reminded us that the President is only Commander in Chief of the armed forces, not the republic at large. The president is not my commander in chief. You can still read it online:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/27/opinion/27wills.html
The main reason we need someone tough is to keep the military in line. Which doesn't always mean restraining them from battle, as Lincoln and the Bushes (HW and W) learned, the military isn't always that eager to fight, sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not.
The whole point though is that a civilian remain in charge of the military. One of the ironies of the past administration was W. telling the general in charge of Pakistan to take off his uniform, when only a few years before Bush had donned a uniform to announce "mission accomplished." On the other hand, Bush kept using the construction that he wouldn't change Iraq policy unless the generals asked for changes. It was the worst of both civilian and military control.
I expect that Obama is man enough to resist the temptation of wearing a uniform and the temptation of pretending the generals should be in charge.
-
@TRenee The Clintons didn't think through the narrative on the Veep thing
[Read the article: More on Clinton camp infighting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for that link Trenee.
I think the Clintons miscalculated the "Obama should be VP" narrative and also its timing (right before Mississippi??) Once again here's a story that seems to have been launched by Bill, taken up by Hillary, and now the campaign has to somehow deal with the fallout.
Here's what the campaign has to explain:
Why is Obama qualified to be VP but not President, when the only job (other than Senate Prez) the VP has is to be the Presidential Spare?
More ominously, why exactly is the candidate BEHIND in the delegate count telling the leader that he should be VP? People are not reading this story the way the Clintons (or SNL) assumed--that Hillary is so OBVIOUSLY the better "commander in chief." It smells of fouler assumptions.
And that explains the verbal calisthenics of her campaign staff to somehow make it all fit.
(And the French think Fey is Moliere?)
-
I predict that pundits and political advisors will be wrong
[Read the article: The expertise of Dick Morris]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Anyone want to give me odds?
-
Client #9
[Read the article: Report: Spitzer caught on federal wiretap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Times nails him with a hypocrisy quotation. Ouch. He's toast.
Maybe he'll resign and lead a campaign to legalize prostitution and regulate it to protect the health and safety of prostitutes, and provide them with alternatives.
Or maybe not.
He was client #9, wonder when we hear about 1-8, 10+. Also politicians?
-
Obama knocks veep slur out of the park
[Read the article: More on Clinton camp infighting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Clintons gave him a fat pitch, sure, but Obama was ready.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsmD4UHtOEY
And that will be my only sports metaphor for the remainder of the campaign. Promise.