Letters to the Editor
Reality-based Liberal
Published Letters: 774 Editor's Choice: 100
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You make my point. I included fair taxation, government regulation in my post. I'd also argue that the nation is on the progressive side when it comes to reproductive choice. As for the other issues, I would be appalled if, in the land of the free, there was no party that cared about civil liberties.
But not to digress, back to my questions: does it make sense for the Democratic candidate to embrace Bush's version of national security to the point of vaunting the GOP candidate over a Democratic candidate who would certainly be less likely to screw the economy (your issue)?
I also have not been provided evidence that would lead me to believe that Obama does not claim to care about the other issues.
-
@ ljwalker53
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was not talking about national security in the following terms: it is the issue. Quite the opposite. I was asking what Clinton supporters thought about her putting this GOP frame above traditional Democratic issues, which include civil liberties.
As for the "endorsement" question, Clinton said that "national security" is the issue in the election (which I question) and that McCain is ready for the White House and Obama is something else. She has hit on this theme a number of times now, so I don't find it tongue-in-cheek. In effect (which is all that matters in politics), she has endorsed McCain over Obama. But if that term is a problem, let's agree that she has said one issue matters, and that between Obama and McCain, only one candidate qualifies on that issue.
As for the Kerry-McCain question, I don't recall supporting Kerry's efforts there.
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with you here:
The best thing Obama could have done instead of getting into a lose-lose pissing contest with HRC, was to have engaged in matters of the economy.
And I don't think Obama is a savior, and I don't endorse his willingness to include GOP in his advisers. But I still can't get my head around the fact that Clinton is willing to put all of the traditional Democratic issues (including the economy) behind the GOP's main issue -- especially conceding that 100 years in Iraq is better than whatever the other Democratic nominee is proposing (which, in future terms, sounds a hell of a lot more like Clinton).
-
Clinton supporters
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I promise never to judge your favored candidate based on her backers here -- e.g. ShawnWM.
ShawnWM: I have studiously avoided throwing the kitchen sink at your candidate and stuck to one point -- her willingness not only to run on GOP frames, but attack the other Democratic nominee (and vaunt the GOP nominee) using GOP frames.
That is a fair question about strategy and judgment. (And, because this is such a knee-jerk crowd, I'll stipulate that I am not invoking anything other than the dictionary definition of the word judgment as it applies to my question here.)
I have many other concerns about Clinton (and I have voiced concerns about Obama too, for the record). I have held back on other concerns about Clinton because I was looking for an exchange that didn't just jump straight to some other talking points. Looks like that's just not possible.
I'm not sure I can get into personal attacks on people I don't know. I've given into that urge before, but what's the point? I may try again some day to thoughtfully engage, but I have to say I'm going to bed tonight a little sad that we don't seem to want to answer questions like: What do we stand for? How do we get what we want out of politics? What does it even mean to be a Democrat? Looking at this conversation, I doubt most people here really care.
Good news in IL, though. I used to hang my hat in Chicago.
-
Clinton judgment
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm probably banging my head against the wall by asking another question, but here goes:
Clinton has said that she and McCain are ready to cross the White House threshold and Obama is not. Now she is saying on the campaign trail that she would entertain Obama as Vice President.
Isn't it odd that she would pick an understudy for president that she has publicly called less qualified than the GOP candidate? Don't you think McCain might bring that up in the general if Clinton is the Democratic nominee?
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just saw Tim Russert play video of her saying that "many of you wish you could vote for both of us. You may get your wish." And she went on to say he would make her ticket a dream ticket.
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do you disagree that insurance companies are making record profits? Do you think government refusal to pay inflated prices is equivalent to insurance companies refusal to cover health care? Do you think insurance companies would lose money if there is a government mandate to buy private insurance? And if your answer to the last question is yes, then why do these companies donate to both the Clinton and Obama campaigns?
-
@ ShawnWM
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You consistently refuse to address what I actually write. I was not comparing government's reimbursement rate to industry with that of insurance companies. I was suggesting that refusing to pay inflated prices, which is what government does, is all together different from private insurance companies' unwillingness to actually cover care at all.