Letters to the Editor
Kingbreaker
Published Letters: 120 Editor's Choice: 1
-
As a mild Obacker,
[Read the article: The chronicles of Austan Goolsbee]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm a bit disappointed in this. Both HRC and Obama have said essentially the same thing to Ohio voters - "We will fix NAFTA." Neither of them would ever seriously consider scrapping it. Both have exaggerated their protectionist stances to get votes.
The Obama aide got caught, not in an untruth, but in admitting the exaggeration. It's a tactical fumble which discredits, to a minor degree, the argument that Obama's campaign is superior and doesn't screw up.
@-- juneausmog
- A good post - you articulate some of the reasons why I initially hoped [but did not expect] Dodd to get the nom. I'm still for O, but more because he doesn't alienate people and may actually have a chance at winning than for any serious policy positions other than Iraq.
-
To the 25%
[Read the article: Quarter of Clinton supporters would vote McCain over Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What are you possibly thinking? That McCain is better *merely* because he is older and more experienced?
Even though:
Obama's and HRC's positions are essentially indistinguishable?
McCain would pander to the Hagees and Halliburtons just like W?
And that McCain embraces the Bush doctrine of preemptive strike?
And that McCain would lock up the supreme court in the hands of the Alitos and the Scalias for decades to come?
And that, for the first time since '92 we could have a Democratic president, senate, and house, but McCain would squander the opportunity for real progress?
Is Obama really, truly worse than all that?
To the 75% of HRC folks who understand priorites, best of luck to your candidate and thank you!
-
Hrrrm
[Read the article: Quarter of Clinton supporters would vote McCain over Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]____________________________
Obama *supporters* can blame themselves
I am one of the ones who will not vote for Obama should Hillary lose. Originally, it had to do with the plain and simple fact that I did not feel like Obama was ready yet. However, after reading numerous blogs and seeing the obnoxious behavior of Obama supporters everywhere, they have done the most to turn me against *their man*. Good Job Obama supporters. You have become every bit as hostile and snotty as the Bushbots were. As a consequence, St Obama won't be getting my vote, ever. If it means four years of John McCain, so be it.
____________________________
Just to be clear on this, it's more important to punish (admittedly) obnoxious web trolls than it is to pick the best person for the job?
____________________________
IMHO Obama is not ready
Everyone here who is so upset because I do not trust Obama to lead our country out of Iraq...are your children there? It's really easy to be for someone so untested when the live of your child is not on the line. I do not think Obama is ready to be president, in my dream scenario he would be VP to Clinton's P but I fear that is not to be. I believe a Clinton/Obama ticket would be unbeatable and lead to 16 years of a democratic president but I think that won't happen. Obama gives a good speech but I see nothing in his background to tell me that he is ready at this point. If I lived in a state like Ohio where the outcome is not fore ordained I would not vote for McCain, but if he is the nomineed I will make a statement for experience and vote for a republican for the first time in 35 years. Oh, and don't call me a racist, please. My son is adopted and is not white.
____________________________
First of all, let me say that I respect your son highly for his service and wish him the best of luck.
But. I find it highly ironic that you'd trust either of the two senators who put your son into Iraq when there's a clear alternative. Experience is not the same thing as wisdom, and when experience leads to poor decisions, it's folly. If you research the history of our country, many of our best presidents were fairly young. Yes, it's a risk to take to support Obama over McCain. But the alternative is to accept another Bush administration. Judging dispassionately, from the record, who is more likely to get us involved in another war - a Bush supporter and ally with a track record for being a hawk, or someone who is on record-consistently as opposing the decision to get into this reckless war?
Throw in all of McCain's 'experience' and the vote against Obama (If it should come to that) loses more of its rationale. McCain is one of the most 'experienced' politicians around. He is also a homophobe, clueless on economics of his own admission, and he cozies up to the right wing fundy fringe. He would appoint reichswing justices to the Supreme Court that would cause problems for generations to come. [That's enough of a reason, right there, to get me to vote for Obama or Clinton right there.) "Experience" is only a factor if two candidates seem more or less equal - as one could reasonably conclude from matching up O and HRC. Given stark ideological differences, how much weight does experience really have?