Letters to the Editor
Kingbreaker
Published Letters: 107 Editor's Choice: 1
-
Here's why.
[Read the article: "Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's too bad that Obama supporters and the media state this as a "Negative Ad".
Stop the double standards.
What you should be asking is; why doesn't Obama want to debate?
_______________________
1) He is winning and has nothing to gain by debating more than the two scheduled debates already agreed to. Were the positions reversed you would be slagging Obama for being negative.
2) 18 debates already and two to come. What's the point? Most voters who care have figured out that the policy positions are pretty much the same between candidates. How many debates would be satisfactory? Once a week? Every other day? You can keep moving the goal posts if desired but it just looks silly.
3) He can capitalize on portraying this ad as a negative death-knell by Clinton. Again, were the positions reversed, HIllary would be doing EXACTLY the same thing. It's the tactically smart thing to do.
Once again, I'll vote for Hill if she wins the nomination, simply because McRambo should not be allowed to appoint Supreme COurt justices or anyone else to positions of authority. But what starts to look like the death knells of the Clinton campaign are not endearing many independents to Hillary's cause. The more she struggles, the worse she looks.
-
Waste of time.
[Read the article: John McCain is running for sissy in chief]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Based on the article title, I thought this was going to be coverage on why McCain didn't vote yes on the "waterboarding is illegal" bill. In other words, I thought it would be some actual journalism.
Obviously I was wrong, and it's cost me two minutes of life that I can't ever get back.
-
The depressing thing about Iraq as a political issue
[Read the article: McCain's risky strategy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is that no one emphasizes that there are really two separate issues that need to be addressed in the election:
1) Was the invasion just and/or justified? If not, should the instigators be held responsible through loss of electoral support and possibly criminal charges?
and
2) What the heck do we do about it now?
It is naive for anyone - even progressives - to think that HRC or Barama will pull out of Iraq any time soon. If nothing else, ensuring a stable flow of oil will keep us there. Unfortunately, neither Democratic candidate will admit this, ergo it's a strength for McRambo.
No matter what happens in terms of body counts, McCain needs to be associated with preemption, and with the decision to go to war in the first place. This is the democratic strong point. But it's not great for Hillary Clinton, which is why Obama looks better in the general election.
Also, McRambo, to be fair, did not say that he was in favor of a 100 year war - he actually said that an American military presence in Iraq could last that long - but in the same style as the American presence in West Germany.
Finally, the reasons for the lessening violence aren't simply that we have more troops on the ground.
1) We are buying out Sunni leaders to oppose al Qaeda. However, the tap may be starting to dry up.
2) The violence of the past several years has led to a huge refugee problem and de facto ethnic cleansing. Hence, less motivation for local violence.
-
Speech reaction
[Read the article: Clinton attacks Obama for focusing on rhetoric, Obama gets long-winded]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Watching all three speeches, I have to say McRambo actually looked the best in terms of his timing, energy, and delivery. He essentially flogged the two Republican responses to all issues: 1) Fear the bogeyman and 2) lower taxes. Nothing new there, but he looked good doing it.
Obama looked *exhausted.* On the other hand, he got fairly specific on his policies. Being a teacher, I heartily appreciated his comments on NCLB.
Hillary looked like she was on the stump, not much more or less. She did make a point of mentioning every union she could possibly think of.
What scares me is that McCain's bogeyman tactics may yet resonate.
-
Why the "experience" argument is weak from HRC Supporters
[Read the article: How Obama won Wisconsin ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1) Obama is older than Bill was when he ran in 1992
2) Obama has MORE time in elected office than Hillary does.
3) Obama gained his reputation on his own merits and not on the reputation of his marriage partner.
4) Comparing the ages of our recent presidents, Reagan and Bush I were the oldest. And, while not as bad as Bush II, neither were good for the nation.
5) Experience that does not lead to good decisions isn't anything to brag about. 95% of HRC and O's policy positions are the same. BUT - Hillary voted FOR the war. Clearly, the wrong decision. The most important vote in her life, and she got it wrong.
6) Many of the best presidents we have ever had were a) extremely good orators and b) relatively 'inexperienced' when they took office. Lincoln, anyone?
7) The "experience" argument isn't working, as the last ten contests have shown. Not exactly a good track record for someone who wants to get things done "from day one."
I like Hillary - really. I shook Bill's hand once we he spoke at my college graduation. I'll gladly vote for Hill if she wins the nomination. Her speech last night was strong - when she focused on her own strengths and got away from "attack" mode.
BUT - HRC supporters - examine your own motives and the "experience" argument, please. For the rest of us, it just isn't convincing.