Letters to the Editor

• @virtue - my reasoning

  [Read the article: David Brooks calls Barack Obama a sojourner]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  As I said in my previous post (the one that you said you agreed with) detailing Clark's horrible performance on "Face the Nation" not long ago -- "Clark is a rather dim light, who really isn't quipped to be speaking out on shows like Face the Nation."

  Sure, agreed that he isn't equipped to go out and speak on shows.

  But his highly regarded and varied military experience, and common sense in military matters, shows to me he would make a good Secretary of Defense.

  You see what I'm saying? Being good at speaking on news shows is a different skillset than running a military. He's proven he's good at the latter, so his poor skill at the former doesn't bother me.

  And Edwards as Attorney General?!!! My God, the man is about to be exposed as a first class philanderer who gave birth to a love child while his wife was coping with cancer.

  There's 2 answers to this:

  1. And Jimmy Carter is "about to be exposed" as a Martian. And Mickey Kaus is "about to be exposed" as someone who blows goats.

  Allegations without evidence are absolute crap.

  2. Even if it was all true - which it seems clear to me not - ***so what***? Edwards' personal life has nothing to do with his skills. As the candidate whose campaign was more about social justice than any other Democrat, and also with an extensive range of actual law experience, he would do a great job as attorney general.

  You need to get out of the echo chamber and start reading everything that's out there -- warts and all.

  I do. I think what a lot of people are **not** doing, is thinking about how what they're reading about people actually effects the bottom line.

  I wish people would think more about candidates as if they were surgeons for their families. Let's say someone you love very much, your spouse or child, needs emergency brain surgery and you can only pick from two surgeons. At that point, do you care if the surgeon's cheated on his wife? Are you worried which surgeon is "arrogant" or "elitist", talks poorly to the press, or "thinks he deserves" to operate?

  Or are you focused on which surgeon has the skills, knowledge, judgement and temperament to give your loved one the best chance to survive?

  Now take on that parable. How many lives does a President effect? More than any surgeon will ever in their entire life.

  If people thought of Presidential candidates like that, we never would have gotten a tool like GWB in office in the first place.

  Permalink Wednesday, August 6, 2008 06:04 PM

• @jeb - you're not getting it.

  [Read the article: David Brooks calls Barack Obama a sojourner]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  I can't think of a single political candidate who ever tried to use the Brandenburg gate as a political prop for a speech. Kennedy and Reagan, sitting Presidents, spoke in front of the gate.

  Here's an incomplete list of other US politicians -

  http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUKL2465837420080724

  LBJ was one, spoke there when a VP.

  Also it's naive to define "political candidates" as politicians who are already President. You better believe Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan and others milked their appearances to the hilt for their reelections. Reagan even had spectators bused in, so the square wouldn't be embarassingly empty.

  But even if that's all true - so?

  Now doing something other candidates haven't done before, is automatically arrogant - AND that arrogance automatically means someone shouldn't be President?

  And you still haven't told me what Obama has done to improve the world.

  I have. You've just refused to give him any credit for any of those efforts. YOu seek to define anything

  Obviously, you and I disagree on this matter.

  Clearly. :)

  You think that charisma is enough.

  No, that's not what I think at all.

  I think that McCain is worse than Obama in every single category; and that his ***proven*** and ***experienced*** judgement has been revealed by impartial facts to be plain awful.

  You have the right to believe that, and to vote your feelings. I have the right to vote mine.

  Sure, absolutely.

  I'm just pointing out to you that your desire to sit out the vote rather than vote for Obama, is:

  1 - based on your feelings rather than an actual cold look at both candidates

  2 - is an effective vote for a conservative 3rd Bush administration.

  If David Axelrod had stuck to promoting Obama, I would probably be voting for Obama. Instead he led the nastiest campaign in recent Democratic history, race-baiting and astroturfing to eliminate the opposition using slurs instead of challenging their credentials.

  OK, well, I think we were watching two different campaigns. But so it is. We could get into the details of that - and Hillary's campaign and surrogates, and their many and documented efforts that were just as bad if not worse.

  As sleazy as McCain it, Obama is just as bad.

  I disagree. But let's say that's true.

  Obama and his backers and the Democratic party is putting forth a direction that you say, as a "liberal-minded" person, you would agree more with. McCain and his backers are not. Therefore, even both candidates are equally bad, someone who is "liberal-minded" would work with what is set before them - and pick the candidate whose path is more likely to not go ***OPPOSITE*** of where they want to take the nation.

  He's no better than Bush, and I'm damned if I'm voting for a Democratic version of Bush.

  If you answer nothing else, please answer this:

  Which candidate will pursue and enact policies that are more like Bush's: Obama or McCain?

  I think you know the answer.

  Please get over the man, and focus on the policies and goals and ideologies. Because that's what is really at stake here.

  Permalink Wednesday, August 6, 2008 06:19 PM