Letters to the Editor
christmartin17
Published Letters: 59 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Edwards
[Read the article: How strong is the Democratic presidential field?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, so now you need to have a "strong background in national security" to be president. Why is it that during the cold war (and after) we elected Governors, but now you have to have "experience" in foreign policy. Tell me where Clinton or Obama have a lot of experience in this area either (or duh, Giuliani or Romney)? Did JFK have a lot of experience in this area before elected? Being The president and Commander in Chief of the military is totally unlike any other job. Schaller says that Edwards' fading poll numbers have nothing to do with his lower fundraising numbers. actually, both numbers are related to how the media decided a long time ago that the favored candidates would be Obama and Clinton(for a non TV example, see the incredibly skewed coverage in the NYT). why? Edwards is too liberal (something not even touched upon here). Apparently since "the world changed on 9/11" it's a problem that Edwards is actually focused on those insignificant problems of the poor and working (and middle) class. On Mclaughlin group this week they showed poll numbers that in just the past month the economy has become much more important, and Iraq less so, to the average voter. And anyway, how are the problems we face now any more complicated than those from 40 or 50 years ago??
don't forget, Democrats have not won a presidential election since 1960 when the candidate was not a southern white male. The media has no problem with the candidate being Black or a woman- but just don't challenge the corporate hegemony too much. The funny thing is that even assuming that Clinton or Obama gets the nomination, the media (TV anyway) will likely turn on them and favor the Republican candidate, just as they have in almost every election since 1980 (the period during which I have been paying attention).
The best candidate for Dems, and the most electable, is the uncomfortably liberal (and southern) edwards. god forbid we should a have a president that favored Unions and average people over Corporations.
-
Edwards/Obama
[Read the article: Israel eyes the '08 Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't have it handy, but I believe that Obama has actually been far more hawkish than Edwards on this issue- for example a speech that the latter gave to AIPAC in the spring (has Edwards even spoken to AIPAC? I don't think so). I am an Edwards supporter and a critic of Israel- so if there were evidence that he was more of a pushover than Hillary or Obama on this issue it would certainly surprise and disappoint me. I am not sure that some comments about Iran amount to much. Mr Levey ought to research this a little more before assuming these positions of the candidates.
Obama is generally more careful about not offending the corporate fundraising base, probably the same goes for the pro israel fundraising base.
-
impeachment
[Read the article: Fred Thompson's revealing back story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is Shapiro another self-hating Democrat that believes Republican propaganda? there are plenty of justifiable reason to impeach President Bush,and Iraq is only part of it. Other reasons go to his breaking the FISA law, torturing suspects routinely (which controverts the Geneva conventions), the US attorney firings, and just generally overstepping his role as the chief executive. there are plenty of smoking guns. for further see the recent writings and commentary of Republican Bruce Fein, among others.
-
dumb americans?
[Read the article: I Like to Watch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]having lived in Eastern Europe, and having spent a lot of time in Western Europe, I can tell you that the people over there are probably not as ignorant of US culture and history as you think. In fact, I would be willing to bet that average Europeans know more about US history (and geography) than average Americans do. They also obviously are more aware of American overreaching since WWII, especially recently. It's actually the Americans that are ignorant about their own country and its place in the world; not the Europeans who are ignorant about America (obviously, typical Americans know very little about what goes on in Europe or elsewhere overseas- it's beyond argument).
it's only anecdotal, but try asking random people you meet at the bar who the US fought in the Revolutionary War. Many of them will not know. Conversely, everyone in Europe knows from whence came the United States. Heather makes a comment about Reagan. yeah, he not only got elected- he got reelected. worse still, same thing with George W. best recent case of American stupidity and willful ignorance was being hoodwinked into the Iraq war. folks we aint strong and brave; we was afeared of Sadaam Hussein whilst the Europeans (and others) living much closer knew that he was little or no threat.
Land of the Free? Home of the Brave? not so much these days.