Letters to the Editor
heyjude
Published Letters: 397 Editor's Choice: 42
-
War and Peace
[Read the article: Obama hits back at Clinton ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hindsight is always perfect, so there is something deeply unfair about second-guessing what was on people's minds seven years ago. My difficulty with Hillary's vote to authorize GWB to go to war is that she admittedly did not read all the intelligence data available. There were some who did read it, who had a sense of what was going on behind the scenes, who voted against the war authorization. Here's Hillary, who touts her policy judgment and her in-depth, detailed knowledge of everything, and she didn't do her homework on what, even then, was a highly controversial and very meaningful vote.
As a normal, informed-as-I-can-be citizen, I had deep doubts about what was clearly a push towards war with Iraq in the Bush administration. I was writing letters back then to my Congressmen and Senators begging them to go slow, to focus on diplomacy, to make sure we had all the information we could get. I had a sense of foreboding just from watching the news and reading the newspapers. So the least I would expect from the most influential elected representatives of the people would be a truly informed, very thoughtful, considered vote on this issue. I don't think Hillary's vote, by her own admission, was that.
And, then, she voted with Bush on Iran. No one could possibly say we didn't know better by then. I feel that she went to the Senate determined to get along and make peace with a lot of Senators who were suspicious about her and that her political life has been more about securing her own position with others than about doing the right, even if controversial, thing for the people. I think she is a good person who does care -- but when push comes to shove, she thinks of saving her own political skin, not unlike Bill Clinton, who is also a good person who has done a lot of good for a lot of people, but also has flown under the moral radar when it served his interests and lied to save his political career, rather than examining his soul and doing the right thing.
I think Barack Obama is more transparent than Hillary Clinton, at this time. I don't know how political success may influence him over time, but at this moment in time, I trust him more to respond to the best interests of others. I don't think he has any hidden agendas. I think he has a noble vision and I think he will do more than she can possibly do -- even if she wants to -- given how divisive a political figure she is -- to heal the bad will and end the gridlock that has crippled our political process. I want us to have a totally fresh start.
In the long run, an administration is not just the president, but the president and the people he/she chooses to take senior positions in his/her administration and listens to. I think Barack will bring in brilliant advisors who are good thinkers, will listen, and will make good judgments. I think Hillary has too many political chits out and will not have as strong an administration. I think her campaign has demonstrated this clearly.
I am not a Clinton-hater. I admire her, and I voted for Bill Clinton twice. But, I think the Clinton presidency was derailed by their own insecurity and emotional reactions. Barack Obama seems to be able to ride the storm better and transcend differences and stay positive and optimistic, so I think he has a better chance to make positive change.
I wish we could all engage in dialogue without so much vitriol. What I've said is just my best thinking on the subject; I'm sure other reasonable people totally disagree. That's why we have elections.
-
If I were Clinton
[Read the article: Jury selection begins in Rezko trial]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wouldn't open this can of worms. What about Bill Clinton's fees from questionable supporters? What about the campaign contributor raising money from Chinese garment manufacturers whose substantial contributions Hillary had to return early in her campaign? Etc., Etc.
Politics makes strange bedfellows. I think Obama spoke truthfully in one of the early debates when he said "no one's hands are completely clean."
I think it's ridiculous, after this whole Rezko thing has been thoroughly investigated by the Chicago press that tried to hang Obama with it and couldn't, to bring it up the day before the primary votes. There's no new news here except that a trial date has been set.
The only thing worse than this would be if the Obama campaign tried to get th press interested in reopening the Whitewater Investigation.
-
John McCain had a point on this one
[Read the article: The chronicles of Austan Goolsbee]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When John McCain pointed out that we can't just unilaterally end a treaty, he had a point.
Somehow, I have assumed all along that both Clinton and Obama either were, or would be, taking steps to engage the parties to the NAFTA treaty in some preliminary discussions and reassurances that we weren't going to irresponsibly just pull the plug on national obligations.
Both have said, rightly so, that the treaty needs to be discussed and that there needs to be a level playing field.
First of all, I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton's people did not hold similar meetings -- and I think it would be responsible if they did. And second of all, the Dems would end up wearing this one in any debate with McCain if they didn't.
I really don't see this as anyone "gone wild". I see it as Barack Obama (and I'm thinking Hillary, too, because she is a very smart and savvy person) keeping to his pledge of using diplomacy, engaging others in dialogue, including partners at home and abroad in decision-making on global issues.
I don't get why this is any kind of big deal.