Letters to the Editor
Flatblonde
Published Letters: 159 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Dear Ethel M...
[Read the article: Paul Krugman criticizes Obama supporters]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Arrogance, they name is Hillary. The Clintonista seem stunned that anyone would dare to challenge her victory lap to the nomination.
Maybe arrogance is there, but at the Obama rally I attended in Virginia, what I saw...for the first time in twenty years in campaign politics...was unbriddled enthusiam and hope. It was an excitment that is rare, an excitement that things can be different, better. Yes, it may have been naive as well, but it wasn't the cycnical "Trust me, I'll say anything to get elected but you should hope that I share your core beliefs" that I get from HRC.
BTW...true arrogance is claiming "experience" when it really doesn't exist...everytime I hear the "experience" argument, I wonder: what decisions did she make? What programs did she run? Oh, wait, she was an advisor to her husband. Hmmm...that alone may say something about arrogance and what is wrong with Washington.
-
Change will come...but let's not go back to the future....
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Change is going to come whether we like it or not...and it is the kind of change that matters.
Is change that brings all of the old players back to power...the Terry McCallif's and Mark Penns and their deep connections to the Washington sceen -- or change that begins moving the country in a new direction.
Yes, Hillary is full of plans, she always has been. She is full of solutions. She has always known what is better for us than we do for ourselves, clearly. She seems to resent the fact taht we don't see it as clearly as she does.
I am an Obama supporter and I will vote for Clinton if I have to over McCain. And one reason is the speeches. It is the inspiration. It is the sense that we can do something bigger, differently and better than before.
Hillary offers us the past. It is a past that I can live with, but it will be a past full of the same old same old. Her whole campaign is prmised on the promise that she knows how to play the game (not unlike her safe votes to empower the president to attack Iraq).
That is the flaw. The game has to change.
Obama might not be the right person for it...it may be illdefined for those unwilling to listen...but he at least is articulating the need. We can not go on in a country of 51/48% spilits. That is what Hillary has to offer. It is what Rove hoped to do for Bush (NO, not accusing Hillary of acting like Rove, accusing her of potentially governing like he tried to have Bush govern...narrow majorities that ride roughshod over oposition and doubt).
Change is coming, as she said, it would be a sad waste of energy if it was changing the last seven years into the eight years before it. At that rate, we'll be back to the middle of the Reagan administration right about the time that the last polar ice cap melts.
-
Its all talk...
[Read the article: Clinton: "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]WOuld someone in the Hillary camp please expalin to me her big solutions?
What "solutions" has she accomplished herself? She blew healthcare the first time she tried it (no real indication that her MO has changed and that she won't be vulnerable there again for the same reasons -- i.e. her way or the highway).
Her claim of creating children's health programming, sounds nice, but it was in conjunction with other Senators -- like everything in the Senate, it is a question of working collegially, not a solo deal.
And why believe that she's any more experience in implementation than Obama. Arguably, as a local organizer in Chicago, Obama had to create solutions that worked for his community -- but that's as may be.
Implicit in Hillary's speech is that she has a long record of dreaming up solutions and implementing them. But the reality is that is just isn't true. As a Sentor she's been an importnat part of the discussion, but not the sole lead, nor the implementor on anything.
In the White House, it was Bill who was tasked with solutions. What did she implement (and how did she legally do it?). She advised on solutions, as it were, but was she listened to?
What is there in her vast White House expereience that gives any of you confidence? I've never heard Bill, for example, say: "I was going to do X but Hillary talked me out of it, I did Y and am so glad I did."
I've only ever heard him say she's a great person to bounce ideas off of...
So, empty suit vs. empty resume?
ANd, if that's the case, why not go with the better speech maker, at least I won't be cringing everytime the leader of the free world opens his/her mouth.
-
Mark Penn's like a Hit Man in the Witness Protection Program
[Read the article: Mr. Penn, pot and kettle called]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unlike the other candidates...Obama in particular...Hillary has pledged to stand up to lobbyists (I believe the other candidates are specifically pledged to do whatever the lobbyists tell them).
So, clearly, if Hillary is to stand up to lobbyists, she has to know how they operate. That is where Mark Penn comes in. After humping around Washington with one of the smarmiest PR firms around for many years, Penn really understands the underbelly of the beast. He's helping Hillary because he wants to make sure that people like him can't make a living in Washington. It isn't unlike a mafia hitman turning state's evidence in order to help the prosecutors shut down other hit men.
Really, it shows how indipendent -- not dependent on the Washington inside powers -- Hillary really is.
Brilliant and crafty. No?