Letters to the Editor
Uncle Fester
Published Letters: 1346 Editor's Choice: 12
-
To VP or not to VP; NYT no longer unimpeachable
[Read the article: More on Clinton camp infighting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with jedbldmm. The NYT has fallen, what with Judith Miller on Iraq, and the lousy reporting on McCain and his lobbyist entourage among other screw-ups. This article may be spot-on or it may not.
There was a time when I would read a NTY article and take it on faith that it was true. Now... I've read too many articles from them that are biased and poorly reported. I always wonder how much is true and how much is spin, who planted the stories and who benefits.
Indeed. I've heard from other media sources regarding Clinton infighting, though. Maybe the WarRoom could do some synthesis and a little custom analysis on this and other topics.
With regards to Obama as VP, I have a few thoughts. First, if you buy into the infighting, it's possible one camp liked the idea, another other didn't. Second, they may have floated a trial balloon and now they are discarding the concept. Finally, the media is asking some tough questions about Obama as VP. Paraphrasing Tim Russet, "The VP is a heartbeat away from the Presidency. How can you be qualified to be VP, but not president?". A hard question to answer.
Links:
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_spokesman_declares_oba.html
After several days of Bill and Hillary Clinton floating the idea of a joint ticket with rival Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton chief spokesman Howard Wolfson declared Monday that Clinton does not consider Obama qualified to be vice president.
Still, Wolfson said Clinton would not “rule out” Obama as a potential vice president [...]
-
Kinda agree with Billcap
[Read the article: Obama takes Wyoming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If neither candidate makes it to 2025, the superdelegates will make the call. How they should make the call, and what are the consequences seem to be the interesting bits. Right now I hear a lot of uncommitted super delegates are in no hurry to take a stand, being the brave souls that they are. And they're right to let the voters take this as far as possible. I think a lot of Obama supporters are assuming that the current trends hold and Obama retains the lead in delegates and popular vote. In reality we won't know until June, or until something drastic occurs. If the candidates split the popular vote vs the delegates, then I think things will get dicey.
If Obama wins both the delegate count and the popular vote, and doesn't have a major implosion, I think there will be blow back if the supers vote in Hillary. Likewise if Hillary was in the reverse position. As far as which candiate will take the most votes away from McCain, and lose the least, I think this is a judgement call right now. Current Polls don't take into account all the unexpected events that will happen between now and the election.
Unless you're voting for Obama based not on his policies but on his personality
But I do think Obama has superior communication and marketing skills, and yes, charisma. Attributes that I consider essential components of leadership and statecraft. Is that his personality? And I think I prefer his temperament, certainly compared to MacCain, who periodically shoots off like a bottle rocket.
-
Do not reward failure
[Read the article: More on Clinton camp infighting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Take her vote on Iraq for example. Anybody with a memory knows that in the context of when that vote took place, it would have made no difference to vote against it, and could only result in political disaster if it turned out Iraq did have WMD.
Iraq was never an eminent danger to the US, with or without WMD. If more senators stood up, the authorization bill would have never been passed, or would have been severely curtailed in scope. Now Bush thinks he can conclude treaties with Iraq without senate approval. The context always is that war is a nasty, horrible and unpredictable business with uncertain outcomes. No country ever benefited from a protracted war.
Dodd and Biden, the senators with the most experience on foreign policy, are no longer in the nominee race. They, like Edwards, took a hit for their support of the Iraq war. Iraq is a such a big mistake, we still don't know how big a mistake it is. Bush 43 himself is telling us to wait at least 50 years to find out.
If Hillary wants to be compared to LBJ, then I can think of the LBJ that escalated the Vietnam war because he didn't want to be considered a wuss when compared to presidential rival Goldwater.
-
@logicalresponse: What about Pakistan, then?
[Read the article: War cheerleaders ask: "Is Obama man enough to be president?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I'm not sure, so let's just wait and see if they sell WMD to some terrorist group that wipes out one of our cities, If that happens, then maybe I'll change my mind." Give me a break.
Preemptive strikes out of fear, whether in foreign affairs or against some big scary dude walking down the street, don't look good when you don't have the evidence to back it up.
And what to do about Pakistan then? According to this story, the semi-rogue Pakistani intelligence services (the ISI) has continued to supply the Taliban with material support using our money.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/10/taliban/
And we know Dr. Khan has been spreading Nuke technology: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
And what to do about Saudi Arabia? Their wahabist hands aren't exactly clean either. Do we need to turn both countries into parking lots?