Letters to the Editor

• Okay. I'll try.

  [Read the article: Former advisor: Obama's Iraq plan "best-case scenario"]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  1. " it still boils down to he said/she said."

  By "it" I mean NAFTA-gate in general not Clinton's part in it. Leaked memos. Rumors. Obama's camp denies that the memo correctly characterized their position. I wasn't saying that Clinton played a part--but why did the Canadians leak that she did? Why did Brodie play a role? The whole thing seems pointless to me, but I didn't mean that Clinton was "guilty" but I don't think Obama did something wrong either. Maybe you think he did something wrong?

  2. "I would have thought that she would have expressed more sympathy for the poor who were forced off of welfare,"

  This was in specific reference to "Living History." I was trying to create her personal frame of reference, and was not referring to her record in its 35 year entirety. Both Obama and Clinton have a record of public service in working with the poor. But some feel that Bill Clinton stabbed progressive values in the back by signing welfare reform without adequate nets for those without childcare....those going to work but still living below the poverty line. This was a specific criticism, and not a general one as you are making it. I referenced her memoir as a way of showing that I think she lacked self-awareness to how poor people might have been hurt by Welfare Reform. If her commitment is more unquestionable to you, I understand. But I don't see why it is "unfair" to question someone though on the way they have presented themselves in their own words.

  3. "Similarly, I think she might have made a remark or two about NAFTA, but hardly strong regret. Perhaps I'm remembering this wrong."

  I'm again referring only to her memoir. I felt that she wrote that book to show where she stood on many issues, and her view on trade did not stand out to me. If you would like to show me where in her memoir it was important to her, then I would be willing to admit I might have remembered wrong. But as for being against NAFTA I looked at her record in the senate and Obama's and they both have supported "free trade" albeit with some concessions for labor. But I don't see a hardline against trade there either.

  And you don't state exactly how Obama lied. You mean by saying that it is part of her "experience" in the white house? It is part of her experience in the white house. I'm not saying that he was being above the fray in politics by pointing this out, but it was not a lie that as an important member of her husband's team she bears some responsibility for it going through.

  4. "But the more important issue of the day is this: Do Clinton's supporters realize that in trying to knee-cap Obama that she may damage the party more than any Republican ever could?"

  Deloresflower, this is unworthy of you, as are your following remarks. No one is "kneecapping" Mr. Obama, and thank you for your concern about the party but only one candidate has made his entire campaign one which overtly REJECTS a sense of party loyalty in favor of a "movement" "cutting across party lines" and "creating a new bipartisanship."

  Obama is running a national campaign right now in the primaries...that is what the movement he is talking about refers to. I don't see how voting for obama must be to reject party loyalty. Some members of the Democratic Party are more loyal to the values and the issues than to any single candidate or person. I hope that you and I are both some of those Democrats. Did you ever read Senator Wellstone's book Conscience of a Liberal? It's not the best writing and he wasn't perfect, but he was more a true Democrat and a populist than either Clinton or Obama.

  Finally, you write "You know, there aren't any blue states or red states? Well, there are. As a true Democrat I will support my party's nominee. This, after your gang has slimed Mrs. Clinton for a year now, and continue to do so....."

  Doc, I think maybe you will be too disgusted and mad at me to write a part two. I think you are conflating fair of critcism with Clinton with unfair criticism of Clinton, and criticism of Clinton with criticism of the party. And I have not seen Obama "slime" Clinton. Have you? I have seen some posters do it--and I was wrong this morning to use a reference to Nero's mother so I've already sacked myself from Obama's team--but to be fair I've also seen clinton supporters like cythera45 slime Obama with such venom and hate--"I'm going to dance on his grave" being one line that stood out. There have been so many Rezko whispers/shouts..."race-baiting" (against Obama) charges leveled and defended even by otherwise lovely and rational human beings who I won't mention here by name...I hope you don't seriously think that both candidates have not been slimed? Not by you. I have not seen you slime Obama.

  So I'm sorry. I was wrong for my unnecessarily incindiary remarks this morning. But I still believe that Clinton could hurt the party by leveling false allegations against Obama that sink in with the general electorate--and do not do anything to help her get elected either in November or in four years. I believe that this could hurt "us" meaning those with progressive values--not "us" meaning team Obama v. Team Clinton. I suppose we disagree?

  I will vote for a Democrat in November. But I want that Democrat, be it either of them, to win.

  Permalink Saturday, March 8, 2008 01:15 PM