Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 244 Editor's Choice: 11
-
@ Deloresflower
[Read the article: Which Democrat can beat McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I thank you for your reasonable tone, however I think a lot of your conjectures are just Monday-morning quarter-backing. You are prone to the communicative message, the linguistic element of the message, rather than the wonk element. It's just a difference of policy: you are more idealistic and I am more pragmatic.
Hillary recently said in one of the most recent debates that she thinks it's important to be capable of "managing" the existing bureaucracy of government to be effective and not just be a be a big picture personality. She doesn't just dictate policy concepts but sits in the committee's and works out the details. I own a couple of businesses and the operations management is critical. To have leadership qualities is hugely beneficial. I see both in Hillary. I find comfort in that.
On the other hand, I find Obama strong on message, but ironically creating the "bridge" by triangulating and conjecturing on many issues. He is the black Clinton of the Democratic party. He is charismatic, but might capitulate. Ironically, hasn't that been one of the key complaints about Clinton from liberals?
Obama voted for Cheney's energy bill, he co-sponsored an April 2007 bill to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, he's voted to fund the war every time as well, he doesn't want to take nuclear energy off the table (so how can you be for clean energy?), he is not self-evident that he can bring change as I look at the last three years he's been a US senator...the republican party has stood by Bush and his unpopular policies against the Democrats despite the "bridge-builder" that Obama claims he is.
McCain is hated by the conservatives. He's pro-war. He's pro-neocon. He's pro-Bush. Half the amount of republicans have turned out to vote than Democrats. These realities stack the deck against him. There is no way he can win once people get to know his positions.
We have a recession on the horizon. A war to end. An international authority to re-assert on moral grounds. Clean energy to build. A peace treaty between Israel and Palestinian to establish. Global warming to deal with. Universal healthcare to create. A middle class to rebuild. Too many great policies that make up a new contract with America to pass up on. The risk for me is, Obama can't execute, despite his enthusiasm.
I know government worked under the Clinton's, and she's a serious gal and she can provide transformative change. I know that in my heart of hearts. But another alpha male for change, that's actually old hat. More thoughts.
-
Lifting the curtain a little bit on Obama
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]“Don’t tell me words don’t matter,” he said in his remarks. “ ‘I have a dream.’ Just words? ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.’ Just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself.’ Just words? Just speeches?”
vs.
“It’s time to turn the page”
and
“Fired up and ready to go”
yeah, Hillary totally did the same thing. Uh-huh. I know a copy editor and what Obama said would be considered plagiarism if he was a journalist.
Obama compares himself to JFK, Reagan and MLK Jr. I've always had the feeling that he's a great student and study of the grand rhetoric, but he is not bringing to the table the ideas that create a real movement that are equal to the aforementioned. Innovative ideas? Yes we can? Hope? Change? Reagan, Bill Clinton and Dubya all campaigned on those ideas. And yes, they were great at the rhetoric and charisma. More of the same. Different election.
Innovative policies? His are almost exactly like Hillary's...nothing innovative there. This exposure confirms my feeling: Obama is an A student of rhetoric and hired a campaign manager that is also a great student in it, but likely the substance is not as complete.
He started writing books back in 1995 because a state senator from Illinois just had so much to tell everyone about himself. Or perhaps he felt his path towards greatness was imminent? I'm reading huge ego here. Meanwhile Hillary has to campaign on her substantive experience while she is being kicked around by a guy who has more charisma and flowery rhetoric. Which is really old-school politics? THAT guy always wins.
What has he said about Israel? How can you be for clean energy but want nuclear power? How can you have universal healthcare that leaves 14MM people uninsured? Why can't you freeze adjustable-rate mortgages for sub-prime mortgages; if S&L banks and other financing institutions get a bail-out, why not the little people?
His rhetoric never addresses these concerns of mine. Perhaps he can borrow something from Hillary in order to get specific. Oh, he did (see economic stimulus plan).