Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ KcM
[Read the article: CNN: Obama sweeps Democratic contests]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A couple of things:
First, HRC wants to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and she wants to change NAFTA. To my knowledge, I think she has said for quite some time that she and Bill don't agree on all policy -- NAFTA and DADT being two examples.
RE: welfare reform -- there were a lot of us who didn't support and didn't approve of Clinton's welfare reform measures. That was actually a pretty depressing time for a lot of progressives. I will tell you what I do know, though: Hillary Clinton took that pig-in-the-poke and did some things that actually made it work for low-income women. One such effort was with a national and DC-based job training program for women. The program made it possible for these women to a) get into apprenticeships in high-wage jobs in manufacturing, telecom, and bldg./construction trades; b) get child care so they could actually succeed; and c) get additional financial subsidies to make up the training stiped pittances they received until they were hired into the field for which they trained.
HRC worked with the stakeholders to develop a successful public-private partnership to accomplish this. Yeah, she worked "the system" and managed to get a program that actually worked. That kind of accomplishment is hard to ignore. It's just one of many reasons that I see HRC as exquisitely suited for what lies ahead of us post-Bush.
BTW: I have no quarrel with wanting to do better. One of the reasons I went to Washington in the first place is because I wanted to see us "do better". But, you've worked in D.C.; you know what the real story is; you know the kind of "back door" politics that go on there; about the cache of chits that gets built up and traded; about the importance of strong allies in high places to move things. I just can't see a gameplan at the moment that spells political success for Obama if he is elected. That is part of what I mean when I talk about the experience factor.
-
Don't Stomp On Her Grave Just Yet...
[Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Walter Shapiro fails to note that Clinton never expected to win any of the weekend contests. And anybody who looks at the states voting on Saturday can't seriously believe that Clinton would have won in any of them.
There is still a long way to go in this campaign and we haven't seen the other shoe drop with regard to Barack Obama. That the media continues to give him a free ride shouldn't set well with anybody. The longer that he keeps getting a pass, the greater are the chances that even a "small" something will bite him -- and the Democrats -- and once again cost Democrats the election in November.
-
@ Peeps
[Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]RE: Your discussion and comments about HRC's Iraq authorization vote, I'd like to respond.
First, a question: Are you or have you ever been a union member? I ask this because it goes directly to point.
There is a direct analogy to HRC's vote for the "authorization" and what union members do when they take a vote to "authorize" a strike. The analogy is important and speaks to HRC's understanding of what authorization has come to mean, legally and in past practice.
Union members aren't voting to strike when they "authorize a strike." They are giving notice to the employer and their bargaining committee to find common ground and come to a resolution. They are particularly putting their employer on notice that the terms of the agreement are unacceptable and need more work.
When an employer and a union can find common ground -- frequently more often than not -- a strike is avoided. But this depends largely on the employer's willingness to "bargain in good faith". Strikes result, most often, when employers play hardball.
George Bush chose to misuse the authorization he was given in good faith. Now, you might say, "Yes, but everybody knew we couldn't trust George Bush," to which I ask this: Did we? If "everybody" in Congress assumed that he could not be trusted, then what does the rule of law really mean? Why bother having a president at all if "everybody" walks into a decision already believing that one side is trustworthy and the other is not?
If everybody believed that George W. Bush was untrustworthy and unbelievable when that authorization vote was taken, then everybody must have logically had to believe that CIA intelligence estimates, findings of inspectors, Saddam Hussein himself, and the thousands of reports were unbelievable, also. Can you honestly say that if you were in HRC's position you would have voted against this authorization? I can't, because I don't know what information she had at the time. Neither does Barack Obama. BTW: Obama has said he doesn't know how he would have voted on that authorization had he actually been in the U.S. Senate when the vote was taken.
-
@ Alecsmom
[Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I couldn't help noticing this discussion about the states that Barack Obama has won.
In 2004 John Kerry won every state that Barack Obama has won so far, except South Carolina. John Kerry also won California, New York, New Jersey, Texas, Ohio (close between Kerry/Edwards), Pennsylvania, Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida and Michigan
My point is, "So what" that Barack Obama has won these heartland and southern states? It might look to you as though Obama is "sweeping" across the country, even winning in Red States, but "sweeping" means nothing when placed in historical context, and neither do Red States wins.
-
@ doloresflower
[Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay, and this is important because...
The thrust of the statement is that he didn't know how he would have voted. So, I think it is disingenuous of Obama to continue letting people believe that he is so "anti-war." And when you look at his voting record carefully, you will see that his rhetoric about the war doesn't match his voting record in the Senate in several significant ways.