Letters to the Editor
sigmund5
Published Letters: 319 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Why not an email address?
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton on Reagan and Republicans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unfortunately you have provoked a response longer than 1000 words...can't I sent it to you?
Although I tend to agree with you on most issues, I think you are missing the boat on this one. The debate exchange did fracture the debate in some very important ways-ways that show the vulnerability of Hillary. For my tastes I prefer Dennis. But I find the "coverage" of Obama puzzling in that either he isn't putting forward concrete plans or that the media is fanning the rock star angle or doin the handicappin thang. Let us just say, to be fair, he remains a bit of enigma or a vessel to be filled. However, I think you are very wrong in strongly suggesting he is some kind of closet Republican or is willing to cynically abandon the sacred cows of liberalism to get independent/Republican votes.
You may only be a couple of years older than Obama, but I think you are missing the context/experience issue that his candidacy raises. The problems facing this country and necessities of being elected don't rely on the old liberal pillars and alliances. In regards to his comments about Reagan I think it doesn't take much imagination to realize he isn't a fan of his policies. I am not sure how that suspicions even arose among even the educated liberals-except as a cheap, business as usual, PR ploy. Whatever the specifics he is asking for something different-however vague it might be. That is why the back and forth about their legal past is so interesting. Yes an up and coming bright guy working in the community who wants to make a change has some dealings with "dubious" folk-especially in South Chicago. That is very different from the facts of Hillary's life experiences and she was a complete fool in raising it as an issue-which raises serious questions in itself about her judgement. Not only her judgement, but it fans the flames of her biggest liability as a ruthless vindictive insider/player.
If she wants to talk about the past and records I think she is appearing very desperate. If Obama hasn't raised the specter of Arkansas or Walmart, White Water, commodity trading etc. why when she is ahead does she brings up the past? I think Obama has been very civil and a good party member in not bringing up sensitive issues that could harm the ticket. Let's take a look at Hillary's recent votes. She voted for the bankruptcy bill written and financed by the credit card companies and Wall Street. She voted against the bill that would tax hedge fund managers-I wonder why?
These are the larger and important issues that attract and demand attention from someone who has been in the trenches and trying to avoid the party machinery route. I do find it interesting in your analysis of the situation that you fail to account for the differences in how each campaign is funded. I would think that would be a key component to consider. The back and forth about the right to abortion and feel good liberal laws about racism and hate crimes have proven completely ineffective-except as a pallative to white upper middle class folk. I have no illusions about Obama being the savior, but damn these nitpickin suspicions are craziness are nutin more than avoiding the bigger issues.
-
Obama and the 60's comment
[Read the article: My sanest conversation on TV, ever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry late in responding concerning Obama's remark about the 60's. That comment struck me also, but I think an alternative reading is possible. I think it too simple to say that he didn't approve of the 60's movements..just as too simple as saying he was a fan of Reagan. His comment questions the trading in nostalgia and hype of the 60's that Hillary wants to partake of. While Hillary votes for the shameless bankruptcy bill, votes against the bill to tax hedge fund managers and "believes" that people who make 96K a year are middle class she wants the aura of the children's defense fund...but not her years as a corporate lawyer. Given her generational age and vague history it is easy for her to benefit from the glow of the 60's without having to make tough political decisions now that would threaten her political funding!