Letters to the Editor
AnaHadWolves
Published Letters: 477 Editor's Choice: 26
-
@ Drinkwater
[Read the article: The rubes and the elites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You wrote: "I don't want to vote for Hillary because she voted for the war. That's a policy and integrity issue. I don't want to vote for her because I do not trust her to find an efficient exit strategy in that same war she voted for.
OK, let me shoot down that canard: she did NOT vote FOR the war; she voted for more inspectors to do their investigations in Iraq. Period. She, and other Senators and Congress-persons, were assured by the Bush administration that they would use force in Iraq as a last resort, only. They assured them that they had no intention to go to war as a first resort.
Plus, the Bush administration...top to bottom...presented false data and blatant half-truths from the NSA, CIA, Military Intelligence, the diplomatic corps and various assets (spies and operatives) in closed-door sessions with the Senators and Congress-persons. She, and the rest of the country, were sold a lie by George W. Bush. If you have a problem with the Iraq war, start with him and continue through the long line of other elected officials who voted with Hillary. Even Barack Obama said in 2004 that he agreed with Bush on the Iraq war.
You also wrote: " What do you think other countries are going to conclude when they see that our presidency gets passed down to families Bush>Clinton>Bush>Clinton. They are going to conclude that we are a dynasty, and rightly so."
Don't mean to be rude, but, that has to be one of the stupidest arguments for not voting for a person: "it will perpetrate a so-called dynasty." Thats about as sad as it gets.
And, you wrote: "But now, AnaHadWolves, that you've put a knife to our throats, answer your own question. How are you going to bring Obama supporters to your aid if Hillary gets the nomination, now that you've called us lunatics and morons? Do you think that, given the campaign that Hillary has run, that we will feel good about campaigning for her? And why doesn't she care? She doesn't. The only thing that matters to her is winning, not promoting democracy or unity.-- drinkwater"
I'm not sure I understand the "knife-to-the-throats" analogy, but, I'll try to answer the Obama-to-Hillary question. It will take a lot of work, a bit of horse-trading and some real connection between the two. If I had the choice, I'd like to see Barack Obama as the VP should Hillary win the nomination. That would show the Obama supporters that she is serious about healing the party. (Do you think Obama would offer the Vice-Presidency to Hillary should he win?)
I never called you lunatics or morons; I have used the terms "naive, cultlike and rude" and stand by them.
As to whether or not she "cares", I believe she does...passionately...care about this country, our futures and the American people. That's why she's running. Of course, should she win the nomination, I think it is the Obamanation that will have to work at that "unity" thingy. Just my opinion.
-
There's A Term For What Barack Does
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The term is "pandering". He was doing just that, Joan, in the City By The Bay...pandering to the wealthy, elite, liberal, and well-heeled Democrats with whom he was fund-raising.
What must be really galling to the Obamabots, however, is that he was recorded saying what he said and was blogged about...with attribution...on a much-read blog.
Barack's wounds are self-inflicted: either he was caught saying what he really meant, or, he fumbled what could have been a straight-forward motivator for his candidacy.
However, trying to do damage-control after the fact by trying to nuance or parse his words as being somehow "misinterpreted" is laughable; as a well-educated person who holds a BA, an MA and a PHD, I understand fully what he said. The problem is that he has been hoist by his own petard and his people don't like that.
Bottom line: would a President Obama have to have a Secretary of Double-Speak to run interference for him? We already have Dubya spewing double-speak; no need for another one of those.
-
Prognostication
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton fizzle in Philly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Barack Obama as the POTUS? I hope not because I find him to be vague, vapid and vascillatory. He reminds me of a slick and sleezy used-car salesman trying to unload a wreck of a car on an unsuspecting buyer.
When pressed to answer for his "bitter" statements last night, he tried to change the subject by saying, in effect: "we need to change the focus to other and more pressing problems." That is known as a dodge, Senator; you didn't answer the question. The Rev. Wright fiasco is still there, too; it has NOT gone away. Fine; have it your way.
I'm a realist. I recognize that the Obamabots and their non-stop and shrill Hillary-hammering will probably win them the nomination...and lose the general election for the rest of us.
And, that's my prediction. John McCain will defeat Barack Obama. Plus, you can count me as part of that 40%, more or less, who will not be voting for Barack Obama should he become the nominee of the Democratic party. I'll either sit this one out...geting ready for a GREAT Democratic candidate for 2012...or will vote for John McCain.
That potential vote for McCain? That would be a result of that old maxim "better the devil you know than the devil you don't".