Letters to the Editor
Ricardo Malocchio
Published Letters: 151 Editor's Choice: 2
-
As always, the Clintons sacrifice principle for power...
[Read the article: Can the Clinton campaign take the heat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...and it's getting to the point where good Democrats may need to make an Obama candidacy a secondary consideration, and work first to keep this rolling psychodrama out of the White House.
I've been trying hard to forget how the Clintons sacrificed the interests of the people and the party during their first term, pissing away (partial) Democratic control of Congress, state governorships, mayoral seats, state legislatures, cabinet members, old friends, old business partners, and even the viability of Al Gore's candidacy. Concerned that their, ahem, "legacy" isn't quite secure, who else are they willing to throw overboard? Answer: anyone. Nothing is more important than power. Certainly not principle. Not the party. Not even basic decency.
We're seeing it all play out again in this campaign. The internecine ugliness, the backbiting, the blame-shifting. This is the environment they create; the one they thrive in. They are utterly corrupted and they corrupt all they touch.
I promised I'd never again vote *against* a candidate. Any vote I cast would be for someone. But if Senator Clinton is the nominee, I don't believe I can maintain this promise. Should she win the nomination, a cold hard look at McCain will be in order. Thankfully, he's at least among that small handful of repectable Republicans, though the last four years have been far less than admirable. Still, in the end, the calculus may well favor his candidacy.
-
@danbe
[Read the article: Can the Clinton campaign take the heat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why not vote for McCain? Why not, indeed.
Actions, not words... remember? HRC votes to authorize force in Iraq without bothering to read the NIE. Action. HRC co-sponsors a bill to outlaw flag-burning. Action. HRC votes against a bill that would make crack cocaine sentencing the same as powder cocaine sentencing. Action. HRC votes to certify the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization, thereby opening the door for a pre-emptive strike based on Iran's harboring of the very same "terrorist" organization. Action.
And, of course, HRC failed to vote against telecom immunity, failed even to show up, failed to publicly oppose it. Omission.
So, she votes in favor of Bush's war against Iraq, votes to provide the basis for a war against Iran, co-sponsors a bill that subverts the first amendment, votes against sentencing fairness that has a racial impact, and makes no effort to protect you and I from unconstitutional government intrusions on our privacy. Indeed, why not vote for McCain?
And what of the first terms? The big payoff legislation? NAFTA. Welfare reform. Promoting the party? Democrats lost control of the house, state legislatures, the majority of gubernatoral and mayoral seats. And how in the world did Al Gore have even a close campaign against such a terrible candidate as W? Because during the latter half of the Clinton term, he was (unwittingly) peddling their lies and defending their indefensible actions (you remember - the ones Hillary blamed on the VRWC, but which turned out to be true?). Unfortunately, he was tarred by the deceit, cynicism, and outright lies of the Clintons. I wonder, sitting here today, if Al Gore's impression of the Clintons are closer to yours or mine? And we know, after all, how many disenchanted former Clinton administrations officials have come out in favor of Obama. There is a damn good reason for this, and we all know it. They care not for anything or anyone but themselves. When it comes right down to it, political expediency and power trumps all.
-
What really burns me...
[Read the article: Obama advisor calls Clinton a "monster," apologizes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...is the apology.
The Clinton campaign labels Barack Obama "Ken Starr", which to some of us might actually be worse than "monster". HRC personally claims McCain is the better candidate than the leading Democratic candidate, something that I've never heard from any Republican or Democrat about their leading candidate. It is beyond the pale. But are we really surprised?
But actions, not words... remember? Why is it that everytime a question about HRC's "actions" arise, her supporters flee from defending them, preferring instead to believe her "words" on the campaign trail. So, let's look again at some of those actions:
HRC votes to authorize force in Iraq without bothering to read the NIE. Action. HRC co-sponsors a bill to outlaw flag-burning. Action. HRC votes against a bill that would make crack cocaine sentencing the same as powder cocaine sentencing. Action. HRC votes to certify the Iranian Guard as a terrorist organization, thereby opening the door for a pre-emptive strike based on Iran's harboring of the very same "terrorist" organization. Action. And, of course, HRC failed to vote against telecom immunity, failed even to show up, failed to publicly oppose it. Omission.
So, HRC votes in favor of Bush's war against Iraq, votes to provide the basis for a war against Iran, co-sponsors a bill that subverts the first amendment, votes against sentencing reform to address a pernicious racial impact, and makes no effort to protect you and I from unconstitutional government intrusions on our privacy. And the common meme is that it will be Obama reaching across the aisle?
If you oppose HRC's actions on the key issues of the day, you might want to take a look at the candidate who also opposes them. One who wasn't "for the war before he was against it". One who voted against Bush's attempt to invade Iran. One who has never sponsored a bill that subverts your first amendment rights of freedom of expression, and one who came off the campaign trail to debate and vote in favor of protecting your fourth amendment rights.
Actions, not words... remember? Will any Clinton supporter defend these actions? Anyone?