Letters to the Editor
weeping for brunnhilde
Published Letters: 1150 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@ Aka
[Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I have never deceived you. I am on Hillary's side."
See, this is what I'm afraid of. I'm really talking about ideology. Because to me, the cause of liberalism demands rejection of this entire Wright issue.
These sorts of tactics, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of Reverend Wright's church?" are repugnant.
Liberals should denounce them, period.
This whole case is symbolic to me of why we are where we are. It involves anti-intellectualism, diversion, divide and conquer, false indignation or worse, genuine indignation. I could go on.
"I was not being sarcastic when I said that maybe it is time for Obama to make another speech. I think a speech on religion would be a good idea. Besides, I don't see how else Obama gets out of his Wright problem. His Wright problem could hurt Democrats besides himself. Did you read the War Room today?
This makes me want to cry. It's not Obama's "Wright problem," it's our Wright problem.
Now let me ask you directly, if Obama cannot gain the nomination and it is Hillary who is nominated, will you vote for her?
No. At least, I seriously doubt it. I believe she should be held accountable for the war. It's my line in the sand.
That could change, but I doubt it.
Anyway, of what relevance is that?--I'm not a partisan. I'm not a Democrat. I'm more of an ideologue, though a compromising one. (Obama represents ideological compromises for me, though less the more I get to know him and his core values.)
TPM mentions a recent poll that has her leading McCain by something like 8% nationally. Obama's not.
So? Polls fluctuate wildly with the day. What am I, a weatherman?
"I'm a Democrat. What are you? This is a really crucial election. If you stand on your principles and McCain wins, will you be able to live with his Supreme Court nominees, with his 100 more years of war, with Bush III and what he will do to our constitution?"
Right, fair enough. I think this is maybe our core difference. As I say, I'm not a partisan, but an ideologue.
I was a Democrat before the Clinton administration, volunteering for Dukakis when I was 15. But then, at 19, when Clinton was elected, I was horrified that he was what passed for a Democrat and haven't been one since, though I have gamed the system by registering Democratic at times for expediency.
I caucused for Dean in Iowa, for instance, and for Bradley before him, before turning to Nader.
So I can respect that we just have different aims. I believe that the party is only as good as the principles it fights for and every time "Democrats" succumb to right-wing tactics and feed on issues like Wright, I'm alienated beyond reconciliation from the party.
Sure, I'll work with them when I think they deserve it, but I guess you could say I draw the line with someone like Clinton.
She's a militarist and I just can't in good conscience support that.
-
@ Joan
[Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Touche!
:)
-
@ Joan
[Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Heh heh. Maybe there is, Joan, maybe there is.