Letters to the Editor
Uncle Fester
Published Letters: 1506 Editor's Choice: 13
-
@Kate A little more love and understanding
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, it would be really nice if more Obama supporters were able to understand that many Clinton supporters simply believe she is by far the best candidate
How many of your posts are about lowering Obama and how many are about raising Hillary? Exactly. There are other pro-Hillary posters here that have taken a different approach. True or not, I don't think your Hoodwink narrative will take root.
I, for one, believe Clinton's had an uphill battle all the way, thanks in large part to horribly biased media coverage.
When do you start measuring media coverage? I seem to remember she had pretty easy sailing this time last year until the fall.
-
Ted Kennedy and missing MLK credit (It was really JFK all along)
[Read the article: Obama's speech on race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, that squares with what I heard. I also heard he (Ted) didn't like the way the campaigning was being done. In reality, it will probably take some poor history geek working on their masters 10 years from now to sort out who said what and when and what effect it had. I'm trying to stay out of the 'who started it first' lines of thought. It's really not who started it, it's who finished it.
Bill Clinton had some interesting words to the effect that once Iowa was won by Obama, he knew Hillary would lose a large part of the AA vote. And he said he didn't begrudge it. Bill's a master politician, so there's always some ambiguity as to what meaning(s) should be assigned to his words; it does add some more complexity to the stew. I don't think he begrugdes it.
-
@Joan Grandmothers and painful but necessary truths
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you want to limit Obama's speech to an explanation of his relationship to Rev. Wright, then I would agree there was no need to include his grandmother. But I think Obama wanted to talk about a larger topic: how to accept the frailities and limitations of the human condition in each of our little sub-groups so that we can move ahead together. That's supposed to be what his campaign is about. A change or restructuring of how we do business as a people. I know a lot of people here think that's all just a mirage or election time narrative designed to deceive the public, but I'm begining to believe he actually means it.
The issue of race or of building any large coalition is not going to be resolved until we can accept our mutual imperfections, and our fears and our doubts. In order for this work, everybody has to come clean. Each group can readily see the flaws in the other group, but struggle to admit to their own. By using real people from his own life, Obama reminded us all that we each have some measure of love and compassion, fear, anger, and hatred. And when we judge someone, we should judge not just based on fear and anger, but on the sum of their works. You don't have to throw people under the bus because of their flaws. This includes Republicans.
This probably sounds a little too preachy to some, and somebody will no doubt remind me that this is the planet Earth. If you want to fight to the bitter end and take no prisoners, then this is not for you. If you have an viable alternative beyond the status quo, feel free. It's going to take a lot of people banding together to change the bad habits of Congress and the Executive. Another four years of trench warfare with a narrow majority doesn't sound like a winning hand.
-
Yes
[Read the article: The real reason Barack Obama's divisive]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Obama is elected President, he will meet with Bill O. without preconditions.
-
Iraq
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's long strange journey on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To be fair, I don't believe Clinton thought she was authorizing Bush to go to war when and the way he did. As she said in her October, 2002 speech, "If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us…
To be fair, I find it hard to give HRC a pass on this one. Especially since she hasn't given me the impression that she has learned from the experience. Take Kyle Libermann for example. I recently listened to one of her floor speeches on the Iraq war resolution , and it seemed to me to be larded with passages that could be used either to claim credit for success or avoid blame for failure.
More vigorous opposition to this resolution might have meant that it was reduced in scope and some damage limited. So willingness to vote no does matter, even if you are the minority. The bottom line is that she and a bunch of other democrats yielded thier authority to the president. Her decision was to let the president decide.
The Congress handed a loaded gun to Bush, and said, make sure you shoot the right people. Saying afterwords, that you didn't think he would pull the trigger, or that he shot the wrong people is beside the point.
All the other Iraq War vote candidates (Biden, Dodd, Edwards) are gone now except for Hillary and McCain.
I agree that it's a shame Hillary can't get a do-over and start again. I'd start by firing Mark Penn and probably Bill. Yes, she has seeds of greatness inside her, and we've seen flashes of that now and then. But the buck stops with her. What she and her campaign has done or not done is her responsibility.