Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
Okay Dana - here you go:
[Read the article: Clinton goes after Obama on Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You wrote:
Those who say Hillary is the same as Bush or as a Republican, or who intone that they can't vote against her because she is not principled or moral, are engaging in exactly the kind of Republican head-in-the-sand sloganeering-as-substitute-for-thought they they pretend to loathe.
Please explain. What you write makes no sense. I don't think she's principled and I have her public record to back me up.
You wrote:
What should President Hillary Clinton do about Iran and nukes?
Do you think Hillary will simply continue Bush's Iraq policies? What should she do? What do you think will happen to our security should all troops just pull out and leave the place in a vacuum?
Our security? Maybe you voted for Bush too? I have no fucking idea how killing a bunch of people who happen to live on "our oil" has anything to do with our security. I don't see why Iran can't have nukes when we do and so does Israel -- clear enemies of Iran who threaten Iran with violence and who have both launched pre-emptive wars in the last 5 years, unlike Iran. Sure their president is a nut, but he's a figurehead. Our president is a dangerous terrorist and Clinton only presents a variation on his policies.
Your wrote:
Do you know what her vision is for the American economy and infrastructure? If so, why can't you support it?
How familiar are you with her new health care proposal, and why isn't it a good practical compromise?
Yes, I am familiar with her healthcare plan. When Newt Gingrich proposed it in the late 90's I fought it -- it was called HSA's back then (Health Savings Accounts). Clinton would take tax dollars, give them in small chunks to people without insurance, and make them give it to private insurers who are donating to her campaign (in return for what will certainly be awful coverage). As for her vision for the economy, she says she'll "pay" for her retirement accounts by keeping Bush's estate tax cut for the super rich in place! By losing money to the super rich she'll pay for the poor's retirement. She is not only a tool for the rich, but she lies right to our face about "paying" for her programs and doesn't bat an eye. Does that answer your question? Oh, but as a Democrat, I'm not supposed to notice. I'm just supposed to shout blindly for my team, even if it stands for the same objectives as the other team, huh?
You wrote:
Do you believe in pragmatism in politics, as Hillary represents, or should we substitute a liberal ideological demagogery in place of the Republican we currently have?
Let's have some more substance in these bold rejections, please. The majority of them sound more emotional and general than substantive and specific. Precisely what substantive thing about Clinton is it that would make you rather see the Republican nominee elected over her?
I have been giving specifics again and again, only to see Clinton supporters present ZERO specifics, including you ("campaigning hard" could be anyone - Hitler could have "campaigned hard"). And I never said I wanted to see a Republican elected over her. I said I'm not going to vote to hurt the planet and my nation; I will not affirm corruption; I will not endorse killing and lying. If that means Guiliani gets elected, I guess that's what it means. But I am not endorsing either him or Clinton. I need my vote to have integrity after whoring it out to the best of two evils for the last couple decades -- which got me and the USA nowhere good.
-
@ doc5467
[Read the article: Is Hillary running away with the race?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I didn't check out these authors, you're right. I have in the past and found people with no archives or very few all on Hillary. I made a rash assumption, given that the authors this time seemed to ignore the content of Clinton critics just as assiduously as the ghost writers.
I guess I'm just a little ticked off by people who accuse Clinton critics as irrational haters. I liked Clinton in '92. I remember being circumspect about her husband, but was generally glad he was president at the time, and thought that she was to his left and probably would have been even better as president.
SHE changed my mind in the last 15 years, not my secret hatred for women or love of the Republican Party. I explained that carefully here at Salon, thoughtfully, from the Left, with facts and reasons -- and then I get smashed for being a misogynist, a Republican, and an unhinged person.
So now I'm getting a little unhinged. I feel like the same "black is white," "up is down" crap of the Bush administration is filtering into Democratic voters and activists, who are buying into the idea that moving more than a few inches away from Bush is "childish," or "radically liberal."
Bush's puppet masters have won. They've won the debate and they've won the next election. Whoever gets elected, more tax dollars will go to corporations, more people will be left out in the cold, and more foreigners will die with weapons that I buy with my tax dollars. That makes me sad. And it makes me sad that this is okay with so many people, as long as the President pretends to care about their issues while stuffing America down the drain.