Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ dontmakemechoke
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People don't care about that.
Not quite sure why, but they don't.
I think it's exactly what someone wrote about (basically) fear of the unknown. Whatever Clinton's faults, whatever her voting record, they're comfortable with her. She's the monster you know, I guess. And they liked her husband.
I just wish the Democratic party could be held accountable for this war.
That's what kills me.
It's not Clinton in particular, but that she represents this moribund, feckless party.
The party of "Impeachment is off the table" and "Let the healing begin."
I don't know why people don't demand better.
Whatever one thinks about Obama, he offers a real chance of revitalizing and redirecting this miserable failure (remember Gephart?) of a political party.
Whatever. We get the mediocrity we deserve in a democracy.
-
@ sport
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I take you at your word when you say you admire Senator Clinton, but may I ask, do you believe her behavior as we were going to war was admirable?
Would not truly admirable behavior have been standing up against the tide rather than racing headlong over the cliff with tall the other lemmings?
Really, no disrespect intended, I'm just amazed that no one cares about this.
I'm honestly trying to understand why this is not an issue.
-
@ aabart
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not so sure about that. I take your point, but don't you think one of his strengths is his steadiness?
I realize he's not been at the top of his game lately, but I don't really think he should make any sudden and reactive changes.
He's winning.
He's not really on the defensive, Clinton is.
Sure, maybe he should be a bit stronger in some ways, but only if it doesn't undermine his basic strength, which is that he's more reluctant to pander and more reluctant to score cheap points because to do so means to validate the rules of the game.
But his contention that the rules of the game are in large part the problem is central to his campaign, so how can he, now, at this late hour, just shrug and play ball?
You see what I mean?
-
@ soisam
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I now view Olbermann as a poseur primarily interested in advancing the career of Keith Olbermann. "
And that perhaps accounts for his animosity towards Clinton: he recognizes and scorns precisely this quality in her because he's consumed by it himself.
Just a hypothesis.
-
@ ovipositor
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think Joan's saying that both candidates are making promises they can't deliver on.
In Obama's case, it's the promise to radically change the political process. In Clinton's, it's a laundry list of stuff.
I think Joan's point is that, at least in the case of Clinton, her promises resonate with people because they're concrete. Everyone wants stuff, not everyone cares about the political process, so long as they get their stuff.
So I think Joan's point, when it comes down to it, is that the working class likes to be pandered to and Clinton's great strength is in giving the people what they want.
(Ok, I formulated that a bit facetiously, but honestly, I think that's what it comes down to.)
-
@ cairo
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the reason (or a reason) Obama can't "close the deal" is because he's trying to avoid waging the kind of campaign necessary to do that.
In order to "put Clinton away" he'd have to basically eviscerate her, and he's not willing to do that, because A) that's the opposite of what his campaign is about and B) he doesn't have to "put her away" because she can't win.
No reason for him to do the dirty work, that falls to the the party and the superdelegates.
He managed to cut her lead in half in PA without ripping her apart.
If you ask me, that's an extraordinary achievement.
-
@ KateTex
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey, Kate, I responded to you before, did you read it?
-
@ luminesce
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You make some strong points, but I think when it comes down to it, it's a matter of perspective.
Frankly, I think Clinton will say anything to win. Empirically, I'd call that a fair statement. (No, not "literally" anything, but we all know what that means colloquially.)
And to me, she did twist the knife in, for instance, by invoking Farakkhan.
Why do you think she did that?
Did that not trouble you?
I can understand your suspicion of Obama's idealism. That's fair. I happen to want some idealism in a president so that's just an irreconcilable difference. Some people want Clinton-style "solutions" and others want Obama-style "grand vision." I'm perfectly comfortable with this as the irreducible bone of contention.
I do, however, feel mystified that anyone could honestly not see how Clinton "will say anything" to be elected.
She's a world-class panderer. This is so obvious to me from watching her over the years that I just can't see how it's not obvious to everyone.
Do you really, honestly not see how saying things like "He wouldn't be my pastor" or invoking Farakkhan or saying "not as far as I know" or repeating Bush' talking points during the lead-up to the war about what a bad dude Saddam Hussein was or the flag-burning amendment--are pandering?
Seriously, seriously, don't things like that trouble you at all? I mean, maybe other things about her outweigh this sort of thing for you, which is fine, but can we at least be on the same page about what kind of person/politician she is?
-
@ Carol Richards
[Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're killing me, Carol.
You are on fire.