Letters to the Editor
Flatblonde
Published Letters: 158 Editor's Choice: 8
-
gabbyone
[Read the article: A bleak outlook for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Gabbyone: Hillary may have championed legislation while first lady, but...how is that the can-do experience that clearly overshadows anythig Obama brings to the table.
First, whatever legislation she championed, it was authorized as an Administration priority by the President...Bill Clinton.
Second, as to writing it, it was put together by experts at OMB and HHS.
My point isn't that her support and lobbying for it wouldn't have been important, my point is that in that situation, without Bill she couldn't have done much.
The White House was a great opportunity for her to contineu her wonderful career as an advocate...but understand that whatever she championed, she didn't implement or oversee the implementation of the program.
In that sense, she's no different than many a Senator, Congressman or Laura Bush, for that matter.
My point isn't to denegrate her "experience" it is good, useful, etc. It is merely to suggest that inflating that resume to make it seem like she's vastly more experienced than Obama is problematic because it rings hollow.
-
So here's the question...
[Read the article: NYT breaks long-rumored story on possible relationship between McCain, lobbyist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the lobbyist got no special treatment, why isn't it that a very different story? I mean it suggest fraud...she charged her clients do get McCain and his Committee to behave in a certain way, and he says he didn't do anthing special. Why did they pay her?
-
Going first...
[Read the article: "SNL" writer says Clinton sounded "whiny" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the planet I come from, going first in this kind of a "debate" would seem to me a good thing. You get to lay your points out, you get to take the first shot. I couldn't figure out why she was blathering about it...it was her shot to put him on the defensive. Instead, it looked like a petulant teenager alleging the homecomeing king/queen selection committee was too cliquey.
Tactically it didn't make sense, unless she had the line in her back pocket -- pre-writen but certainly not plagerized -- and wanted to use it somewhere and wrongly thought this was the time. You can see her and her managers thinking "Ok, we can point out to them, like SNL, that the press rolls over for Obama..." thinking it a great idea and just dying to toss the gernade.
-
One Wonders...
[Read the article: Hillary at twilight]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While she could, of course, still pull it out, one wonders what might have been had Hillary actually found her voice. If she had talked with passion about why she should be president and not managed a campaign calibrated to polling data. She has looked tentative when the moment cried for boldness. She has seemed shrill when the moment called for command. Funnilly, I don't think that is her. I think she has lived so long as the calculating politician (and that isn't really intended as a disparagement), she has forgotten or at least failed to project why she wanted to be in politics in the first place. So, what comes across is so often patronizing and condescending, rather than compassionate and inspired.
If she loses there will be a lot of disection of why, but we should also all keep in mind what might have been...had her campaign been better, had she "found her real voice" and stuck with it, had she demonstrated an ability to manouver and dance with the moment rather than projecting an inevitability that the times were not hungry fo.
-
Its a good ad...but that's all it is.
[Read the article: Newest Clinton ad plays on security fears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, it is well done. It raises good questions. But here's her problem: what in her career suggests that she's any more prepared than Obama to answer the phone?
Is she suggesting that she sat in on National Security issues while First Ladies? Which ones? How did they come out?
Is she suggeting that shaking hands with foriegn leaders is the same as knowing them? How? Why? What leaders did she have a substantive exchange with that was more than a photo op?
Is she suggesting that Bush is right, that Terrorism is everywhere, so we have to have someone willing to through the Constitution under the bus to protect us?
I think this ad will be very effective. However, when the most important call in recent memory came...the vote on Iraq...she picked up the wrong phone. She didn't do her homework and voted to sink us in Iraq. That alone is reason enough to vote against her...as her "experience" doesn't match our reality.
-
AN observation...
[Read the article: Newest Clinton ad plays on security fears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is so close, btw, to the Mondale ad from 84...I wonder why the Clinton folks aren't crediting Mondale's campaign for the idea...smells a little like plagerism.
Oh wait, the person who wrote the Mondale ad recylcled the idea...sort of like gave the Clinto folks "permission" to use it, practically in its complete original form.
;)
-
I can spell:
[Read the article: Newest Clinton ad plays on security fears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Get a sense of humor."
;)
-
Let's really lay it on the line...
[Read the article: Clinton campaign: Forget what we said earlier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If OBama doesn't win EVERY vote in Ohio and Texas he doesn't deserve to be the nominee. If he can't take it all, than the person with fewer delegates should get to run as that nominee, unless the person with fewer delegates actually wins those states. But she won't have to win them all, she'll just have to win enough to show that Obama didn't win them all and in that way doubt will propell her into a new victorious march toward a convention where the superdelegates -- aware that Obama's support is something less than %100 percent would be afraid to nominate someone with less than %100 percent support, unless that person is in second place in the delegate count. See?
-
Slackie
[Read the article: Clinton campaign: Forget what we said earlier]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Its beter than that...a poorly run campaign...one that ceded its position of inevitability to the comforting status of underdog in record time and spending recrod money, shows the skills, talents, strategic abilities necessary to run a winning national campaign. On the other hand, an insurgent campaign that wasn't even on the radar screen four months ago, that has won ten in a row, racked up huge amounts of money and changed the dynamic of the election is clearly deficient when it comes to facing the challenges likely to be thrown at it by the GOP.