Letters to the Editor
Gwool
Published Letters: 366 Editor's Choice: 40
-
Guilt By Association
[Read the article: The Giuliani code]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was reading the littany of Guliani transgressions and lapsing into that moral relativism comparison to Clinton wondering what the big deal was all about. It's the post-watergate permutation from (justifiable) investigative journalism into invasive journalism.
I was all set to try prancing through this thing when I read a littany of Hitlery's letters.
Hitlery, you do more for the other side with the sophomoric one liners and juvenile names than anything Joan Walsh could write.
Rudy has his marital transgressions which ought not matter a damn. (I categorically refuse to get into a relativist tit-for-tat with the former president's history on this one.) Some of the other things likely merit investigation and would probably be quelled with a simple, "I was mislead." Pols make tons of appointments and selections. There will invariably be a couple here and there that are going to blow up in their face like an exploding cigar. The issue becomes how they address it once it *does* happen. Hiring is equal parts science, art, and luck.
There is bias around this joint, Hitlery, but you don't build a very effective case to illustrate it with ridiculous handles and drive-by-postings.
Just chalk it up as some polite criticism from someone you invariably deem a RINO and to whom you wish good riddance on your way to minority party status YET AGAIN.
-
"She has worked for everything she's had; he's had everything handed to him, including the presidency." ... Huh?
[Read the article: The Clinton vs. Obama slugfest continues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't help but respond to this. Hillary has worked for everything she's had?
Really?
I remember the so-called healthcare initiative a little bit differently. She was handed that assignment. She was not elected to it, nor was she vetted by the senate's advise and consent function to become a Clinton cabinent member.
It was a monumental and controversial undertaking. When the criticisms started flying the sexism card was played. She had rougher treatment than other first ladies. Eleanor Roosevelt went through the same things, yadda yadda yadda.
She wanted it both ways. She wanted to extend beyond the ceremonial duties of the function while maintaining the hands off approach accorded those serving in the ceremonial function and typically picking up non controversial causes such as drug abuse or adult literacy. There's nothing non controversial about seeking to nationalize a huge chunk of the economy.
And now she seeks to do that with the entire Clinton record. For the successes she's right out there on point taking credit. For failures Bill comes out, bites his lip, and says it was all his fault.
If it is fair to hammer Jr as having benefitted from his family ties to get where he is today, then it seems perfectly appropriate to say that Mrs. Clinton had doors opened for her by the fact she was walking through the halls of power three steps behind her husband.
I am certain she has accomplished things in her tenure as a US senator. The question becomes whether or not she'd have been able to pick up stakes and move to New York as Hillary Rodham who had dated a former president at Yale Law School and had succeeded at getting into the senate in the first place.
She was neither elected by the people nor vetted by the senate approval process during the Clinton Administration, yet gained experience.
How did she earn that?