Letters to the Editor
dog-walker
Published Letters: 79
-
@Uncle Fester
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes. And truly, unless you've got a Kerry (great man, but those crazies who argued he was electable must love lawn-bowling) who's going to bore one to many voters into picking the opposition, it IS the issues and really ONLY the issues that count.
One of the interesting things the Bush administration has demonstrated is that there is real power in the Presidency, even without popularity and political savvy. He's demonstrated how much damage can be done with that bill signing/vetoing pen and the commander-in-chief gig. The corollary, of course, is how much good could be done by a president with the RIGHT (I mean, of course, Left) policy goals.
I WISH that were Clinton. But something in all that "truthy" campaigning feels like genuine contempt. And then there are those votes!
Okay, let's say Obama is not a great man just because he gave full throated opposition to the war from the beginning. That was easy, some might say, or obvious. So let's not give him any merit points for it.
But HOW does HRC overcome the DEmerits? (Or wash her hands of all that BLOOD?)
Some will argue that it was the prudent thing to do. Everybody did it. She acted on the intelligence she was given.
Um, but... an unprovoked war of aggression is an actual crime against humanity.
-
@KateTex
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's a good point re the "get out" chorus. That stuff is nuts. I don't know if the research would stand up, though. Any second opinions on that?
-
@lateagain
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm beginning to feel uncomfortable with your analogy. Fox is not a nation. We are not (despite rhetorical flourishes to the contrary) nor ever will be in any kind of war with Fox (well I can imagine a Phillip K. Dick scenario where we might, but in THIS life not.)
I'm not sure a candidate shilling themselves on ANY network could be convincingly compared to Carter at Camp David. The more I think about it, actually, the more it seems a sort of random association of thoughts.
And isn't this what the Clinton campaign has boiled down to (just as it reaches the point of almost complete evaporation)? Reaching out for any wild stretch of the imagination that might possibly construe what they call a "path to the nomination?"
I think the problem with your analogy is somewhere in the difference between the general idea of being kind to people we disagree with and engaging in genuine conversation and debate (a la weeping, who EXCELLS at it), and managing foreign policy.
I'm not sure the purpose, say, of meeting with Iran would be to share views or demonstrate open-mindedness. It might be more along the lines of "I hate you and I spit in your eye and your mother rots, but since war is the great scourge of history, can we establish this or that protocol to hopefully diminish the chances of more mutual blood letting?"
I mean, "we" don't really need to understand and get along with any particular "other." It's fine to hate. You can hate and trade, hate and find areas of mutual benefit, hate and yet not kill, right? That's not a nice place to be at, and it doesn't open a path to better understanding and fulfillment of human potential, and between folks who disagree about domestic politics it would seem pretty crazy, but hasn't it worked okay to staunch pitched violence between Egypt and Israel?
-
Cuomo
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes. He was exciting and powerful. He remains an example for me of what a politician can be.
Maybe he lost to Pataki (more than any specific issue) just because he'd been there too long. Is there a point where a politician loses the battle against everything that happens enough that people start wanting an alternative.
Which would in no way critique his policy positions or political style.
Re Trust and Mutual Goals: to me this is the most important aspect of what Obama is offering. The Bush years have been a study in lying about what you really want because you know you'll never get it if you tell the truth. And it has resulted in a war that we'll end up "losing" like we did in Vietnam, not because the anti-war crowd betrayed the cause, or we "surrendered" or "retreated" or anything like that, but just because it doesn't make sense any more. The ruses that sustained it for these years, and the very compelling wish not to write down such mammoth and heart breaking losses that has strengthened the rationalizations supporting those ruses, will finally simply wear out. And we'll just leave.
It's just a failed policy.
Without open campaigning for specific goals, without creating some kind of mandate for important national undertakings (war, a competent education system, health care), aren't we always at susceptible to failing in this way?
So even with the risk that we do not know as much about Obama as we do about Clinton, and that he might turn out to be all hat and no cattle, it seems like a prudent risk to take.
Because what we're increasingly knowing about Clinton, is that she's anything but forthright. How could she build a mandate? Her mode of competition forecloses the possibility.
-
@listener25
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You make a good point about the allure of Obama's "purity" on the war, and your "good German" analogy touches home for me.
BUT, I worry that you're attracted to the "hard worker" over the talent. This idea of hard work seems kind of odd to me. It seems like a meme we've heard too much of in recent years. Ditto fortitude and brass balls, etc.
And the rookie argument? It doesn't really hold water. Example: Bill. (You might say, "Yeah, but he was governor for 12 years," but I don't see how that experience is any more important than Obama's work organizing, in the state senate and in the U.S. Senate.)
But the point about guilt and the impulse to reach for the guy that might make you feel innocent again. That strikes me as pretty powerful.