Letters to the Editor
Stewsburntmonkey
Published Letters: 190 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Bush was actually more experienced than either Obama or Clinton
[Read the article: Clinton: "This campaign goes on"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"FYI, we don't need to read a John Grisham book to see what happens when a candidate with no experience (no intelligence?)gets into office. Just reflect on the last 7 1/2 years. Barack Obama can do far better walking in his sleep. Probably better even if he was 3 days dead."-- AlecsMom
I find this sort of statement odd given that Bush had more executive experience than either Clinton or Obama. He was the Governor of Texas for 6 years. Neither Obama or Clinton have any elected executive experience.
It is sad to see Hillary crash and burn so badly. I think many of us knew this is how her campaign would be, but it is sad to be so fully confirmed.
-
Just like the President
[Read the article: Clinton: "This campaign goes on"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]" In popular lore and belief the lieutenant governor, who heads the Senate and appoints its committees, has more power than the governor. The governor commands the state militia and can veto bills passed by the Legislature and call special sessions of the Legislature (this power is exclusive to the governor and can be exercised as often as desired). The governor also appoints members of various executive boards and fills judicial vacancies between elections."
Hey that sounds just like the President of United States!
I'm just saying that the whole experience thing is silly. Experience hasn't historically had any relation to the performance of the President. Even if it did it'd be hard to say which of the Democratic candidates had more experience. Certainly neither Clinton nor Obama have held federal, elected office very long and if experience is really going to be the rallying cry why not support McCain? He's certainly had a much longer career than either Clinton or Obama. The playing the experience card now would certainly backfire in the general election for Hillary.
I think history has shown fairly conclusively that passion, vision and intellect are what truly matter in the President and Obama is clearly the winner in each of those categories (I suppose you could debate the intellect bit).
-
Experience only happens in Washington?
[Read the article: Clinton: "This campaign goes on"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ok, I have heard it and one can make lots of arguments about Obama's experience. But please remember, he is the one touting his inexperience ("I haven't been in Washington long enough for the hope to be stewed out of me." paraphrase)-- TinyBubbles
So can one only get experience in Washington? Politics, leadership and scholarship don't exist outside the beltway?
I think you are confusing Obama's promotion of his non-Washington credentials with inexperience.
-
What substance?
[Read the article: Clinton: "This campaign goes on"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I want to believe. But for all the pleasure it gives me and others like me to think about what might be, we have not yet seen the substance from Camp Obama that would enable us to take the leap." -- quickstrategy
What substance don't you see? His website is full of very substantive policy views and he lays out quite a lot of substance in his book. I really don't see any substance gap between Obama and Hillary.
"Worse still is the behavior of those, in venues like this, who identify themselves as Obama supporters. Questions or skepticism about Obama's substance are treated as attacks and countered in the most personal ways; differing viewpoints are treated as moral failings (I'm talking to you, Michael Chabon); everything is evidence that everyone is biased against Obama. In Salon comments, people use words like "treason" to describe these purportedly anti-Obama "slurs".
These people sound less like supporters swept forward on a tide of hope and longing for change than like Freepers from the Bizarro world." -- quickstrategy
So you say Obama supporters engage in too many personal attacks and then call them "Freepers from the Bizarro world"?
"If Obama gets the nod, as it appears increasingly likely that he will, I'll be glad, hopeful, but cautious. More substantively, I'll be gearing up for battle up until the election ... not against my fellow Dems but against the right wing mouth-breathing machine, which will take the kid gloves off. Those of you who think Obama is some kind of beseiged saint will really get to see what nasty is, then. And I hope you'll be there with me, fighting for him with some substance, and not stamping your feet and feeding on your own." -- quickstrategy
You act as if this would be anything new. Dirty politics is nothing new, especially from the national Republican machines. It makes you sounds a bit pompous and condescending to pretend that Obama supporters are somehow blissfully aware of the "real world" and culture of dirty politics. This is especially odd given that much of Obama's support is based on the fact that most people are tired of dirty politics and personal attacks.
"And I hope you'll still be with him after the new year, as I will be, when the problems turn out to be a lot harder than just downloading a new politics to your iPod, and what turns out to be practical and realistic does not look much like what you thought you were being promised between now and the Fall."-- quickstrategy
Again you seem to be talking down to the poor, uneducated, naive Obama supporters. This is funny since demographically Obama is strongest among the well educated. It's funny how people mock the education and affluence of Obama supporters ("latte drinkers") and then act as if they are all a bunch of ignorant neophytes.