Letters to the Editor
kenkapkk
Published Letters: 131 Editor's Choice: 13
-
Monarchy
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's secret plan to protect the rule of law]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn has been right all over this issue. Obama's "tack to the center" is despicable, especially in this case. This is a bait and switch in which he stridently presented himself one way, then abdicated it in the face of controversy. To claim "this takes the issue off electability" is exactly the position the Democrats took in authorizing the war.
This is "we had to destroy the city to save it."
When Obama says he as President wll "monitor it closely", he is explicitely acknowledging that the rule of law no longer exists but is dependent on the whim of the person in office. From a Constitution lawyer, this is a bankrupt position and asinine.
I understand that as President, Obama could do far more good than if he were not elected. But to cave on this is unconscionable. Obama keeps saying "I welcome the debate on terorism" but he runs from it. Here was a chance to take a stand and elevate the discourse. Obama failed miserably.
Obama for the moment has doused almost any enthusiasm I had for him. His disdain for the activist base is noxious. I cancelled his email list, wrote a blistering response as to why and said I would not contribute to or volunteer for his campaign.
I understand that Lioncoln and Roosevelt while campaigning and governing elicited similar responses but it does not change the way I feel. I am wary and concerned that the man is a phony. He will have to show me something to win me back. I will vote for him, but the bloom is off the rose.
Olberman, who I like a great deal, is an apologist in this regard who apparently has temporarily lost the capacity to think as an adult. Shame on them both.
I don't think the Republicans will get traction out of this. As a matter iof fact, I believe it will give Obama what he wanted, but the cost was too high, it could have been handled differently. I am totally disgusted by the Democratic party. But I will NOT support Nader and allow the possibility of any Republican getting within a galaxy of the White House.
-
Pragmatic Sellout?
[Read the article: Barack by the books]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think there is a big difference between being upfront about your "pargmatism" and utterly and explicitely presenting yourself differently before you go completely the other way. Obama directly and again explicitely took a position on FISA that he reversed completely once he won the nomination. This is "not" pragmatism". This is fraud. He deliberately positioned himself as a progresive alternative to Clinton.
I am concerned that all this *inevitable* "moving to center" IS a sell out, partly because it is a capitualtion that is misreading the landscape. It is the cowering Obama said he "does not do".
Why would it be SO hard to give a major speech on "being liberal" and rip the right and the mythology for what "liberal" truly stands for. Why this spineless allowing of the Republicans to define things. I think they can't believe the openings they are being given.
Why not take on the Media who have become the Swift Boat embodiment?
I am very wary of Obama now. I see a man who played people to win, then is changing like a chameleon. This is not being a "cagey politician". This is being an intellectual thief.
I will trust him when he has demonstrated he has earned it. Not before. (I will not support McCain or Nader, but as of now, no money, no volunterr work.)