Letters to the Editor
Taliesan
Published Letters: 942 Editor's Choice: 19
-
He was the best of the lot
[Read the article: AP reports John Edwards will drop out today]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but now it is down to Obama Vs Clinton.
Irritating, but inevitable, because if there is one thing the Democratic party hates, its a populist candidate who cares about Democratic policies, as opposed to a pair of centrists who seem more concerned with getting in good with the Republicans than running the country.
That said, Obama is the candidate I hope wins. Hillary is the Republicans' one chance to take 2008.
-
What is now out of the running...
[Read the article: Clinton's statement on Edwards]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The one candidate you could disagree with, without being labeled some variant of a "Hater" by their supporters.
Oppose censorship? Hey, you are a sexist Clinton hater, and a racist to boot (The two aren't all that dissimilar on this issue.)
Want a real liberal who will, you know, take a liberal position and then compromise rather than compromise and then compromise some more?
Sexist and racist variant of a hater.
Personally, in defence of "Haters" everywhere, well let me just say that it is time for the liberals to vote independent once more, because another four years under a wussy who can't take criticism isn't exactly going to serve America's interests.
-
tomreedtoon
[Read the article: John Edwards exits with honor]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It isn't actually America's fault.
You see, America hasn't had the chance to vote for those virtues in decades, and while you talk about being afraid of what the opposition has to say, the opposition gets the nice little edge of being the side that shows any strength.
The Democratic problem is that liberals, despite the overwhelming evidence to vindicate their policies, are too "nice" to actually vote for someone who champions liberal policies.
Thus in November, expect to see the return of the Republicans calling the Dems weak, and the Dems caving on major issues in order to prove the Republicans right.
-
Alfred J. Lemire
[Read the article: Republicans make Fox News sick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you are a reporter I am a frigging ent.
Anybody with any brains that works in the news industry has zero respect for Fox, particularly after it went to court to defend its right to fire its reporters for telling the truth.
-
Not all conspiracy theorists are conservatives.
[Read the article: Enemies everywhere]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But all conservatives are conspiracy theorists.
-
Okay, the way I see it:
[Read the article: Don't call Oprah a "traitor"!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama was against the war in the first place, and even though he has voted to continue funding it, hasn't really changed his rhetoric in that regard.
Him continuing to fund it, is a concern but can be excused by the idea that if you have to do something you don't want to, you may as well do it properly.
Hillary was in favour of the war in the first place, and though her rhetoric has been toned down somewhat, has demonstrated that she is still in favour of more of them (Her Iran vote.)
Obama's stance on gaming is milder and at least more sensible than Hillary's - though he evidently isn't very familliar with the issue, otherwise he would have shared Edwards' view of the ESRB.
http://kotaku.com/gaming/politics/presidential-candidates-talk-video-game-censorship-331853.php?mail2=true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_mod#Federal_and_legal_action
Note: The basic argument over Grand Theft Auto, was that this game did not do enough to warn people that it was not suitable for children. Because with a name like Grand Theft Auto, we all know that this is basically wholesome children's fair.
Obama has spoken out against group-guilt in the form of reparations - even though this is a unpopular decision of his this shows a lot of character. As an individualist, this appeals to me, due to the fact that I reject group politics.
Hillary Clinton's supporters at least, seem to be deeply invested in group politics, calling women who vote for the other candidate traitors to their gender. Needless to say, these victims of such a betrayal bear their crosses nobly while seeking lawns to burn them on. (IE: Contrasted with the KKK's treatment of white people who supported racial equality? Same message, different choir.)
Hillary's foreign policy is on its surface, more satisfying than Obama's. She follows the ideology of being nasty to your enemies so that they can stop buying your goods and listening to you when you ask them to stop killing people. (calling Putin soulless for example.)
Obama is at least, reasonably willing to be civil.
-
Why Iraq tells you not to vote for Hillary
[Read the article: Undecided '08: Should I vote for Clinton or Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because a certain post on this subject requires a rebuttal.
After 9/11 America was an angry nation where people were looking for someone to take it out on. Passions ran high and pascifism was an unpopular viewpoint.
Of course, prior to 9/11 Bush was already looking like a dud, with the world slowly moving away from America and the economy going plunk in the toilet bowl.
Afghanistan happened, and for the first time in history a war in Afghanistan looked sort of workable. America was fighting the good fight against people who banned music because they were just that up their own backsides.
Bush and the Republicans utilised this to start a war in Iraq, on evidence which Congress and the Senate had already dismissed years earlier under Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton and Joseph Lieberman were instrumental in arguing for the war, possibly based on their own angry emotions.
Barack Obama, at that moment stood against the war despite likely feeling exactly the same things that the then war supporters felt. He stood up and called the war wrong.
Barack Obama demonstrated at that moment one trait which was missing from Edwards (Though I preferred Edwards as a candidate) and Hillary - he could set his emotions aside and think clearly.
So between the two candidates on that one issue, I would take Obama. That I could identify with Hillary (Though I opposed Iraq from the start) is irrelevant. What is relevant is which candidate showed the ability to think clearly in a time of crisis.
You are not punishing Hillary by voting Obama on that point. Nor are you punishing Obama by voting against him on healthcare. You are voting for the person you think will run America best, and a cool head under pressure is an important part of that.