Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman: Hutman! Again!
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really wish that you would not lump "us" all into one convenient group. I think each Hillary supporter has his/her own mind and reasons for supporting her. Really, Hutman. I have acknowledged elsewhere that Obama followers are not of one mind. Can you at least give us the same courtesy?
Regarding your comments that Clinton did not read the NIE Report. I don't have an answer for you. I don't know why she didn't read it. From the research I have done on the authorization and on Sen. Clinton's Armed Services Committee work, it appears that all of the committee members were briefed on the NIE at one and possible two meetings prior to Senate debate on the authorization.
From my own experience in Washington I will tell you that what frequently happens is this: full reports are summarized by staff and assistants, who brief Senators on the major points, while letting senators read the summaries prior to debate and votes. I suspect that such a report summary was probably provided to Armed Services Committee members. Most likely, Sen. Clinton read the summary of the NIE -- or perused it, probably on her way to a meeting or to a floor vote. This is not nefarious; it is a simple fact of life in Congress. I am not hedging here; I am trying to be honest, based on my experience. I am sure that Sen. Obama also does this -- it is a way of life on "the Hill."
I was angry with Clinton and OTHERS who voted for the authorization. But let us not forget the time period. Even though I am anti-war and have been since Vietnam, I cannot say that I would have voted against this resolution, given what was occurring at the time, because I don't know. I believe that senators and representatives who voted in favor of it did so in good faith, particularly since language in the measure made it clear that military action was a last resort and that diplomatic efforts and U.N. inspections were primary thrusts of the resolution.
Unlike you, I don't see sinister motives in every action that Sen. Clinton takes -- possibly because I know something of the real person, having seen and been a part of her public service in action when I lived in Washington, D.C.
You ask why she does not apologize for her vote. She has. What more do you want? That she prostrate herself? Don't a person's good works count for anything? If you look at her record on Iraq, including her Senate floor statement, there is a pattern. She has made it clear in every vote, in every bill she has sponsored, and on every measure she has voted -- since almost immediately after Iraq was invaded -- that she did not and does not believe military action was the right course to take.
I don't expect you to become a Clinton supporter; I know that won't happen. What I DO expect is for you and others in Obama's camp to stop putting straitjackets on Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama. Sen. Obama will NEVER be able to live up to the expectations demanded of him and Hillary Clinton will NEVER be able to be less than "evil" unless you accept the very simple fact of life that both are fallible human beings.
-
@ Pesky details: Please Read My Reply to Hutman
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is infinitely easy to judge others in their decisions when we don't have to make the same decisions and don't walk in their shoes...
-
@ Pesky Details: You Make It Difficult to Turn the Other Cheek
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Much easier to call me venomous and ill-informed, and then go back to beating the everyone-is-so-mean-to-Hillary drum.
And even more so when you continue making generalizations about me and about Hillary Clinton.
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman: By The Way...
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You still have not responded to my questions to you about Sen. Obama's war votes, or about the NAFTA flyers (dirty tricks) he mailed to Ohio voters, or about Goolsbee's statements to the Canadians AND Obama's lie about the statement.
I believe the question was posted in the "Yes, She Will" article, but you can check in my letters if you want to reply. That article is, I think, a more appropriate thread for a discussion about the war, Obama's voting record, etc.
-
@ Pesky details: If the Cynicism Shoe Fits...
[Read the article: Dowd: Are (Hillary's) women necessary? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe if Clinton and her supporters had spent less time complaining about how mean Chris Matthews is and more time coming up with a credible defense of her Iraq war vote, they'd be winning over more young female voters.
I can't explain to you why sexism IS NOT ABOUT being "mean". If you do not or cannot understand why the media WOULD NEVER use racism or racial baiting/slurs, but seems perfectly fine using sexism in its analysis of female political candidates, then we have a problem that goes deeper than disagreement about voting records.
And once again your categorical argument here is fuzzy logic and paints a pretty wide brush over "young female voters" and what they would or would not do.
If she honestly believed Iraq was the right battlefield, then her judgment stinks and her "experience" argument is a joke.
I don't happen to believe that "her judgment stinks", primarily because I've worked in Washington -- as a progressive Democrat -- and I know how the real world works "on the Hill." If you also have such experience I'd be delighted to have a discussion about it.
Regarding the "experience" argument: how she voted on the authorization is but one of many actions that comprise the realm of "experience". Experience is not, however, made from one vote or one decision, but a combination of many decisions and actions over a period of time. Thus, this isn't a factual (or particularly effective) categorical argument.
If she didn't honestly believe Iraq was the right battlefield, then she cynically decided a few thousand American lives was a small price to pay to keep her White House dreams alive.
Unless you "know" that her decision was "cynical", this is a generalization about Clinton and her decisions.
In her shoes, I'd probably want to make this election about mean old Chris Matthews, too.
You seem to be the one making this election "about mean old Chris Matthews," not Hillary Clinton supporters -- other than to point out and request that the media treat every candidate with dignity and respect (e.g., not using racism OR sexism in their coverage).
And if you re-read my earlier post on this thread, I did not accuse you of being "venomous" or "ill-informed." What I said was this -- and I stand by it: "I sincerely wish you and others who so despise Hillary Clinton -- based on media hype, innuendo, rumor, disinformation and outright lies -- would do a little more research before judging so hastily and with such venom.
Finally, I have to say that your posts to me seem pretty hostile and cynical. I could be wrong, but that's not what I'm reading.