Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ keepingitstraight
[Read the article: Obama's plan to change the economy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well said.
Yet another thing I've never understood about Clinton's appeal.
One of her chief strengths is her wonkery. Fair enough.
But I've yet to see an actual argument for how that qualifies her to be president rather than, I don't know, head of a task force or something.
Obviously a president needs to be sufficiently wonkish to follow the basic contours of competing proposals, but beyond that, it seems to me the position calls for the kind of guidance ("that vision thing") you suggest.
-
@ Jayman
[Read the article: Obama's plan to change the economy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Will Obama change this? I have no idea, but I am positive another round of the Clintons and the DLC will not."
Well said.
I think a lot of people who toss around the epithet "obamabot" and sarcastically reference "the savior," etc., fail to realize that many of us have precisely this perspective. Obama's promise seems boundless. He may fail, he may succeed.
But the more salient point is the one you make here, which is why, in my view of "moving forward," the Clintons should be factored out of the equation.
-
@ Carol Richards
[Read the article: Obama's plan to change the economy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hear, hear.
-
@ sunspot
[Read the article: Obama's plan to change the economy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, but besides all that, how can possibly blame the Clintons?
After all, they're Democrats, aren't they?
Sheesh.
(In all seriousness, thanks for your posts. It's a pleasure to read such a balance of passion, command of the issues and lucid thinking about the big picture.)
-
an amusing scenario
[Read the article: Time columnist: Gore-Obama in '08?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, I'll bite.
Speaking as someone who campaigned for Nader in 2000 in an effort to repudiate Clintonism, and as an Obama supporter now, I would vote for Gore this time around, provided that he ran on climate change.
The most dismaying thing about this whole election cycle is the deafening silence about the number one issue facing the planet.
It's a horrific (near apocalyptic, even?) form of mass denial. As far as I'm concerned, everything else, the war, the economy, terrorism, whatever, is as nothing next to the prospects of having our planet become inhospitable to human life, even if "just" along the coasts.
Anyway, I believe Gore gets it on this front, and I think he'd be our best hope of initiating the radical changes required for us to even attempt to deal with a crisis the scale of which will make the Depression look like boom times.
-
@ kStone
[Read the article: Obama's plan to change the economy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think sunspot's point--and I claim no expertise on economics--is that the Clinton administration championed the sorts of pro-business policies that facilitated, directly or indirectly, the overall climate in which Enron operated.
As I lived through the 1990s, my perception was that the Clinton administration was alarmingly business-friendly. The more dramatic examples that I can recall from memory would be media consolidation and NAFTA, but I'm sure sunspot can provide you with more examples and evidence of the point s/he's making.
Again, I can't provide you a laundry list of Clinton's policies, but I can tell you that it seemed like one thing after another after another, as far as Clinton's embrace of policies that would have made what I was raised to believe was a "real Democrat" wince.
-
@ PR
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ha ah ahah a h!!
You should apply to the Onion!
-
@ Kstone
[Read the article: Obama's plan to change the economy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the response.
I share your concern.
I was lukewarm on Obama for a long time, mainly because, while I thought he was talented and a decent guy, wasn't convinced he stood for anything other than Clintonian centrism.
I've seen lots of evidence since to convince me he's the real thing, that he has a serious vision as to changing the entire process of politics along with raising our expectations as to what we expect the government to be about.
Now, I certainly concede that, if elected, he might well end up playing it safe and easy and running a benign, do-nothing presidency.
But the more I get a glimpse into the guy's mind, imagination and vision, the more I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He's not a cardboard cutout, that's for sure, and I believe he's running because he has truly "generational" ideas, a genuinely "Reaganesque" vision in terms of redirecting the country.
But if I'm wrong, I honestly don't see how we'd be any worse off than under another Clinton presidency.
There's just so little upside to the latter, as far as I can see.
An Obama term might end up being just a placeholder (though again, I increasingly doubt it), but I'm certain Clinton's would be just that.
More of the same, mildly corrective of some of the worst excesses of the Bush years, perhaps of the Clinton years as well, but all in all, nothing to write home about.
At best.
At worst?--watch out, Iran.
-
@ ciccina
[Read the article: Obama's plan to change the economy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And I'm so tired of lazy thinkers with nothing to offer but straw men.
Is that all you got?
-
@ mdlewis
[Read the article: How the long primary battle helps Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thank you for a thoughtful (and exhaustive! :) response.
I agree pretty much with everything you say.
Ftr, Edwards was my first choice too, but over time I've come to fall in love with Obama as a candidate.
It seems as if a lot of people have that response: as they get to know him, they like him more and more.
Given that there are so, so many serious issues in this election that McCain is on the wrong side of (war, economy), it's really hard to see how Wright-type smears can carry the day.
Not this time (so we hope!).