Letters to the Editor
Asher Steinberg
Published Letters: 224 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Few Comments
[Read the article: McCain loses his patience]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. McCain hardly even lost his patience. And it's understandable that he would get annoyed by hearing this same old question for the thousandth time. As he said, everybody already knows he and Kerry had a conversation, so why ask like it's new news? He feels that she's trying to damage his credibility with Republicans. I'm not sure he's not right.
2. On the topic of Hillary giving her thumbs up to McCain's security credentials, you can read it a few different ways. The most charitable interpretation, and I think probably the one that's most accurate, is that she's trying to say this: McCain's the opposition, so whoever we nominate has to be able to go against McCain. McCain's strong on national security so that means our nominee has to be able to show he/she's qualified in that regard. I can do that; Obama can't. I really think that's what's going on here. Now, if you buy into the Machiavellian view of Hillary, you can say that, in addition, she's also trying to hamper Obama's ability to run against McCain. If he gets the nomination, McCain will use these comments in his ads, maybe get elected, and then she can run against him in 2012. He'll have inherited a weak economy and a mess in Iraq, one which he wants to prolong, so there's every chance she'd have an easy time knocking him off. I think that's possible too. For the most part, though, I think she's just trying to say that Obama isn't electable in an Obama-McCain race. Now, as to whether all this is "treasonous" or what have you, sure it is, if the Democratic Party is your guiding star in life. Otherwise, I think it's just smart politics.
-
In Fairness
[Read the article: Former advisor: Obama's Iraq plan "best-case scenario"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A general who briefed Hillary, though he's not one of her advisers, said roughly the same thing about her:
If Senator Clinton can best Senator Obama in today's round of primaries and caucuses and go on to capture the White House, a co-author of the surge strategy in Iraq says he is convinced she would hold off on authorizing a large-scale immediate withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq.
In a weekend interview, a retired four-star general, Jack Keane, said that when he briefed Mrs. Clinton in late 2006 and January 2007 on the counteroffensive strategy known as the surge, she "generally supported the surge strategy in the sense she wanted it to succeed but she was skeptical about its chances.
Mr. Keane is in a position to know Mrs. Clinton, having worked informally with her since 2001, when he was vice chief of staff for the Army. Early last year, the Clinton team even asked the retired general to become a formal adviser to the campaign on military issues, a request Mr. Keane declined, as he has done when asked by other candidates.
"Senator Clinton is very knowledgeable about national security and is probably going to be strong on defense," he said. "I have no doubts whatsoever that if she were president in January '09 she would not act irresponsibly and issue orders to conduct an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the consequences, and squander the gains that have been made." Mr. Keane added that he could not imagine any president in the White House making that kind of decision.
http://www.nysun.com/article/72209?page_no=1
Personally I'm somewhat encouraged to hear that Obama doesn't really plan to stick to a strict timetable for withdrawal. That wouldn't be a good idea.
-
Don't Buy that, Hutman
[Read the article: Former advisor: Obama's Iraq plan "best-case scenario"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, if Obama's sole position on Iraq was that silly line he repeats in debates ad nauseam - "we will get out as carefully as we were careless going in" - then there'd be no contradiction. But he has a specific plan, and Power says:
he will of course not rely upon some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate.
Now, if he doesn't plan to rely on the plan he's publicly hawking, what's the point of the plan? Does that make any sense, having a plan that you don't actually plan on implementing or "relying upon"? This is like if Hillary's health adviser came out and said, "of course, due to the opposition her plan would face in Congress and all the minutiae we haven't considered yet, we don't actually plan on using or even relying on the healthcare plan she's currently proposing, though we do have some vague commitment to make healthcare more affordable. The plan she's pushing is just a best-case scenario." No contradiction?
-
My Answer, Lateagain
[Read the article: Former advisor: Obama's Iraq plan "best-case scenario"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is that candidates, if they were really honest, would quit putting out plans in areas where it's certain that such plans will never become reality or where it would be silly to stick to those plans. Of course, voters want to hear specific plans, so it's unlikely that candidates will stop proposing them anytime soon. But it does seem intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to propose a healthcare plan or an education plan that you know will never get passed quite as it stands, because everything gets amended a little one way or another. But to say that if you're elected you'd pass some protectionist measure that you know could never get through Congress (like Obama's Patriot Employer Act), or to offer a specific date for withdrawal, as both Obama and Clinton have done, is really dishonest because those dates can't even be interpreted as goals, much less real commitments.
-
Really Sort Of A Win For Hillary
[Read the article: Obama takes Wyoming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She did a lot better here than you might have expected. In states bordering Wyoming, she lost by 34 points, 48 points, and 62 points. Here she loses by just 23. And an Obama net gain of 2 delegates is a lot better than a net gain of 4, which one might have expected going into the caucus. If she can get to within single digits of Obama in Mississippi, then we'll know she's really making headway. He ought to win there by at least 15.