Letters to the Editor
logicalresponse
Published Letters: 151 Editor's Choice: 18
-
pot kettle black??
[Read the article: The politics of hope]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It is one thing to disagree with Clinton about whether Obama and Edwards are backing off their politics of hope, but it is quite another to imply that Clinton is doing something wrong for raising the question. Just because you do not agree with Clinton on what Obama and Edwards are dooing, does not mean that she is wrong for raising the issue. If Obama and Edwards can chat about her, why can't she chat about them? One interpretaion of your article is that you are doing to Clinton what you are criticizing her for doing to Edwards and Obama. It is amazing how often this turns out to be the case when the discussion becomes about the messenger and not the message.
Everyone does the messenger thing, of course, including Clinton. But that is not what your story was about. You singled out Clinton, critically, for something everyone does, including you. Yet I doubt that it was your intent to shame anyone into silence. So why must that be Clinton's motive? Maybe she just wanted to make sure everyone knows what the other two are doing. The choice to keep doing it or not is theirs.
-
Grieving over Hillary Clinton
[Read the article: Clinton and the GOP's anti-endorsement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I was actually quite dismayed by this article. It is an escalation on a theme Grieve wrote about yesterday.
Quote:
Barack Obama delivered the obvious retort: "Part of the reason that Republicans, I think, are obsessed with you, Hillary, is because that's a fight they're very comfortable having. It is the fight that we've been through since the '90s."
End quote.
Obvious? Not by my lights. The “fight” against the Clintons by the Republicans is a “fight” the Republicans have always LOST! Bill was president for eight years you may recall, and the Republican impeachment was party line and lost in the Senate trial. Hillary won New York twice, extending her margin of victory the second time. Just exactly what about all that would make the Republicans feel “comfortable?”
Quote:
John Edwards piled on: "I mean, another perspective on why the Republicans keep talking about Sen. Clinton is -- Senator, they may actually want to run against you, and that's the reason they keep bringing you up."
A new Quinnipiac University poll out this morning has Clinton trailing Rudy Giuliani by two points nationally, a five-point swing away from the former first lady since the last time Quinnipiac posed the question in August. Other recent polls have Clinton leading Giuliani among voters nationwide.
End quote.
I do not understand the juxtaposition of these two paragraphs, unless you mean to imply that Edwards is right, because the pole shows Giulliani can beat Clinton. By the way, is it no longer good journalistic ethics to point out that both the former and present poll have Giulliani and Clinton tied within the margin of error; in other words there is really no statistical difference in the earlier and current poll?
For what it’s worth, you also don’t mention that Obama and Edwards are not doing any better. Obama is tied within the margin of error and Edwards is trailing Giulliani outside the margin of error.
Add your article today to the one yesterday about “the Politics of Hope” and you seem to be losing your objectivity here. You write as if Obama and Edwards are taking the high road, but there is little evidence to support you. When Edwards berates Clinton for supposedly changing her position on Iraq (which I feel is not an accurate criticism), does he really think that voting for the resolution and then apologizing is not a change of position? Do you think that apology was not somewhat expedient? It would have been very easy for Clinton to apologize as well, instead she is willing to take the heat for what is certainly not an expedient position. Who is telling the truth all the time here?
As for why Clinton is being attacked by Obama and Edwards, let’s take a look at another part of that poll you don’t mention in your article. Clinton has gained strength among Democrats nationwide and now leads Obama in the primary field 47 - 21 percent, with 12 percent for Edwards. This compares to a 36 - 21 percent Clinton lead among Democrats August 15. Enough of this Grieving about the fact that Clinton has the lead. She will make the best president of any of the candidates. She makes her decisions based on what she thinks is right, not what she thinks liberal Democrats want to hear, and she will be a strong president. As the current poll shows, as of now, she would do as well as any of the other Dem candidates and better than most in the general election.
The attention that Republicans have been giving Clinton has a number of motivations. They can’t talk about Bush and it is safe to talk about Clinton, because no one at the debate is going to criticize them for it. It makes little sense to say that they are doing it because they want Clinton to win the nomination. If they wanted that, then they would be trying to make it appear as though she is the one they least want or are most afraid of (without actually looking afraid, of course). Obama’s comment about the Republicans feeling comfortable talking about Clinton really has no substance at best and makes no sense at worst. That you think it was the appropriate response makes even less sense.