Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
My but this is a colorful thread
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have asked the same two questions twice and received no good response from Clinton supporters. I offer no smears of either the candidate or her supporters, and if it takes name calling to get a response, I guess I know all I need to know. Again:
Clinton endorsed McCain over Obama citing her view that this election is about national security and McCain, unlike Obama, has the requisite experience. (I use here the word "endorse" because that is a fair way to describe calling one candidate qualified and another not -- but use this definition if "endorse" gives you problems.)
Question 1: Is it acceptable that a candidate running for the Democratic nomination has placed George Bush's priority -- "national security" in the form of his "war on terror" -- over reproductive choice, civil liberties, public services and government regulation (issues on which Obama is VASTLY superior to McCain)? By saying McCain is "ready to cross the [White House] threshold and Obama is not, because McCain is ready to take up Bush's "war on terror," she is concluding that this is more important than the progressive issues I cite above.
Question 2: If it is okay for the Democratic nominee to make Bush's "war on terror" the number one issue, then how can Clinton match up to McCain in the general when she has much less "national security" credentials? This question is especially relevant when they agree on the analysis (his position was that the military option in Iraq was okay, Bush just did it the wrong way -- which, given her vote to authorize the whole thing, is her position too).
My bottom line is that it is foolish to accept Bush's world view at the expense of reproductive choice, government regulation, fair taxation, civil liberties, civil rights and the rest of the progressive agenda on which McCain is vile. It is folding the Democrats' best hand before the general.
And to those who claim the Democrats have been losing because they're too liberal, I can only wonder what planet they're living on. Gore had his highest poll numbers for the few weeks he actually sounded like a liberal. Voting numbers have gone down dramatically as the Democrats merged with the GOP. Obama has brought more than a million new (or vacationing) voters to the polls simply by suggesting a different approach (jeez, his voting record, for anyone who cares to look, is about the same or to the right of Clinton's). All it took for Obama to excite these disenfranchised voters is to promise a new direction and to raise his money from regular folks -- that shows that not only is there promise for Democrats who look to the left, but that there is a huge wave of support for anyone willing to try to move away from the Bush-Clinton insider approach.
-
@ madamfauntleroy
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I don't want to call anyone here racist, given the liberty with which they're throwing around words late at night, I will agree with you that racism in the US taints much of what is killing the left (particularly with the "war on terror," which casts whole populations with legitimate grievances as one monolithic enemy of civilization).
I do have to disagree with you about KateTex answering me. She said that Clinton didn't endorse McCain over Obama and stopped there. If this is a difference on choice of word, fine (although I think I use the word appropriately).
Clinton said that this election is about "national security" and that McCain was ready to cross the threshold and Obama was not. That suggests to me that Clinton therefore believes that 100 years in Iraq as opposed to Obama's wanting to leave provides better national security. It also suggests to me that she believes that "national security" -- as McCain sees it -- is more important than all progressive issues on which McCain sucks. This is surprising given that if she is the candidate in the general, doesn't she has some control over what this election will be about? I would conclude that she believes managing Bush's war is more important that progressive issues.
So I'd say my questions still stand unanswered by KateTex.
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You have answered me by talking about Obama. I was asking a question about Clinton and asking if it makes sense for the Democratic nominee to embrace GOP frames.
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please don't be hostile. I haven't been.
My point is that the Democratic nominee does not have to accept the GOP frame you rightly state the Republicans are throwing out there. I would say that once you accept their rules, you have already conceded way too much.
-
@ KateTex
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You did raise additional points about voters believing that Clinton represents the interests of the poor. I responded to that. But you didn't answer my questions about Clinton placing "national security" above progressive issues (and I put national security in quotes here because she used the phrase to refer to McCain's ability over Obama to deliver it, and I believe McCain's 100 years in Iraq and willingness to bomb Iran to be contrary to sound national security).
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Were you referring to me when you posted to "Rabidfly?"
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I did not just cite civil liberties, but also reproductive choice, government regulation, fair taxation and civil rights. If these are not core Democratic issues, then what do you see as the difference between the parties.
Also, please cite where Obama says all these things, including civil liberties, don't matter (I will need more than his saying we need to move beyond the 60s, which is terribly imprecise).