Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ WES
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your point is well-taken, and it gets to the heart of a serious philosophical difference between Clinton and Obama.
Obama has put it eloquently. Clinton believes that change comes from playing the game better. That is, conceding that Rove's game and Atwater's game is the right one and then playing it better.
Clinton has been victimized by what she rightly termed a VRWC. Her lesson? Out Rove Rove.
Obama's argument is that, while this may help win elections, it does nothing to help bring change once the election is won because the cost is deep and profound alienation.
There's simply no serious consensus for doing bold, visionary things because the only mandate is: "Well, he'll save us from Willie Horton!"
Obama has spoken about the lesson learned of trying to implement change without a clear popular mandate and he has determined that the way to secure that mandate is not through the win-at-all-costs, kitchen sink, Tonya Harding style of politics, but rather through talking up to people, not down. Keeping the focus on the serious, not pandering to the bullshit.
Now, we can argue about the wisdom of either approach, but my opinion is that Obama's way is the only way to accomplish what we say we want.
Sure, it might still fail, but as I see it, it's the only approach that even stands a chance.
Do you see that side of the argument?
-
in short
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the election really turns on all this nonsense about patriotism and fear and resentment, etc., we all lose!
Isn't that clear?
That way madness lies, as has been manifestly demonstrated over the years.
The Democrats' problem hasn't been that they're not Rovian enough, but that they haven't stood up and argued passionately for a liberal agenda.
The Clintons sold out that agenda, conceding that "liberal" is a dirty word, and behold the result.
A party that has no compelling center around which to rally.
Win-at-all costs got us the Clinton 1990s, which, in my view, should be seen as part of the problem, not held up as some kind of gold standard to go back to.
But I freely admit, I'm an unabashed leftist.
-
@ WES
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry, I'm trying to articulate this well because I think it's critically important to be clear on this, it's a big issue.
It's not that Clinton is teaching Democrats to fight. The real question is how to fight.
The real question is whether Hillary's brand of fighting is as productive (long-term, especially) as it appears on the surface.
Is Clinton wise?
Does her campaign display wisdom?
Does the fight need to be dirty in order to succeed?
And if so, is the victory of any real value?
These are really serious questions with no clear answers.
But Obama is offering an alternative, one that, if successful, suggests to me the sky will be the limit with his presidency because his style of politics is designed to minimize resentments and keep the focus on our common humanity and the real problems we face.
He understands that in order to accomplish things you have to win people over, not bulldoze them out of the way.
-
@ mdlewis
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Very convincing analysis.
"Don't know that anyone will agree with me, but I actually think Obama has further proven his electability over the past few weeks. He dealt with a major blow to his campaign with dignity and integrity, and managed to twist it into 35 minutes of free air time in which he tackled race in a powerful and unique way while staying on message and pushing a little Democratic populism as well."
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
-
NotOrbitBoy
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have to keep saying this because I think it's critical: even were Clinton's story to be true, the real question is: so what?
How does evading sniper fire demonstrate the experience requisite of a commander-in-chief?
This is the angle of the story that we should be discussing.
Lie or no lie, the initial claim should never have gotten by without someone asking her, point blank, "And how, exactly, is this anecdote relevant to your argument?"
I'd love to hear an answer to that.
Honestly.
-
@ W.E.S.
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually, with facile "analysis" like that, you're the one who's kind of funny.
-
@ W.E.S.
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I apologize for snapping like that. I'm giving in to my frustration.
I snapped, though, because I'm trying to engage you in an actual exchange and you've not responded.
I'm reaching out here, you know?
-
@ W.E.S.
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What are you doing here?
Do you have something to contribute or not?
-
@ singout
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well said.
I share your frustration and basic analysis of the Clinton MO.
The Carville thing is so, so revealing.
It's not about the fact that Carville said a mean thing about Richardson, but about the ethos the remark reveals.
Is it not indicative of the same type of cronyism against which Hillary herself has railed in the Bush administration?
This is a very dangerous ethos in a president, if you ask me.
The idea that Richardson's loyalty is owed to the Clintons is profoundly odious.
-
@ W.E.S.
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for your response, WES.
No, I didn't mean I was reaching out as a partisan, but as a human being, as an engage citizen in the democratic process.
I'm not here to shill.
I'm an Obama supporter, but I'm not here to win converts, but to discuss the issues in a forthright and intelligent way.
The real enemy, to me, is unreasoned discourse.
And shouting one another down and failing to listen to and consider one another's arguments and be willing to change our minds as evidence and reason dictate.
I'm trying to develop ties of trust.
Again, I apologize for lashing out at you and I thank you for responding with civility.
-
@ Mickey
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]" Hillary has baggage, for sure, but nothing even close to the Wright problem. "
Do you have evidence for this?
It's quite a bold claim.
How would you substantiate it?