Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 197 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Senator, unless...
[Read the article: Goodbye, Super Tuesday]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]a_ignatius unless Bloomberg gets in and wins it. An extremely long shot, though, so I think that Walter was justified in writing it the way he did. On the other hand, I'll admit that his formulation caused me to stop and scratch my head for a moment, too.
Or rather, I beckoned to my impeccable silver-headed butler and had HIM scratch my head for me. Using a mink-lined designer head-scratcher, of course! :D
-
The Proverbial Cleft Stick
[Read the article: Goodbye, Super Tuesday]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@Atlanta214:
So you and like-minded Hillary supporters will turn into Republicans if Obama gets the nomination (note: "steals" it? What, does Hillary own the nomination?).
Contrariwise, I will not vote for Senator Clinton if she gets the nomination (although unlike you, I will not vote Republican). There are other anti-Hillary Democrats who feel the same way, I know.
So it would seem that the Democratic Party is screwed once again. If Obama gets it, they lose you and may lose some of the women's vote. If Clinton gets it, they lose me and probably some of the black vote. Either way, John McCain and Karl Rove must be very, very happy right now.
I have no solution to offer, unfortunately. I'm merely pointing out the problem. Maybe someone else can see a way out.
-
The Experience Line
[Read the article: Goodbye, Super Tuesday]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@Atlanta214:
I see that you hate Obama as much as I hate Clinton. But seriously, this claim that she's a paragon of "experience" seems really questionable. She's in the first year of her second term as Senator, while Obama is in the middle of his first term. That's not a large difference.
Unless you count fucking the President as "experience", which Hillary supporters apparently do. But I don't think that experience is communicable via spermatozoa.
I'm sure she worked on some policy issues as First Lady (including kneecapping Al Gore, apparently). But she was unofficial, unaccountable, unelected, and secret. She and her husband won't release the documentation of her time in the White House, so the public has no way to verify her claims.
And let's take a look at her experience in the Senate. She played the chump for George W. Bush, voting to give him authority to start the war in Iraq. I don't know about you, but to me it was totally obvious at the time that that vote handed Bush and Cheney the greatest gift imaginable: a long-term war that would rally the public behind them, enabling them to beat the Democrats to death as "weak on national security", securing Republican electoral dominance through 2006, and allowing them to loot the Treasury through crooked defense contracts.
That was obvious to me, and to others - including some in the media. But Clinton still voted for the Iraq authorization. Which brings me to this question: was she stupid? Did Bush, the dim bulb of the Bush family, trick this so-wonderful, so-brilliant woman?
If so, she's not qualified to babysit dogs, much less hold public office. That level of gullibility is absolutely unacceptable in the White House.
Or perhaps she took a long, cold look at the vote, and reasoned that if she voted against it, the Republicans would use that vote to label her as unpatriotic in this Presidential election.
In which case, she cold-bloodedly sold the lives of thousands of American soldier as well as untold numbers of Iraqis, allowed hundreds of thousands of people to be maimed, and CRIPPLED the Democratic Party for HER OWN POLITICAL ADVANTAGE.
There's a word for that. Treason.
Either way, that vote alone should disqualify her for higher office. Throw in her support of the Iran "terrorist" bill (yet another invitation to Bush to start a phony war), the flag-burning bill, and her support of the 2001 bankruptcy bill - one of the most vicious bills ever leveled at the working class - and you have someone who shouldn't be allowed within a hundred miles of Washington D.C.
"Experience" like that is the last thing America needs. We've had enough of it from Bush.
-
My logic...
[Read the article: Goodbye, Super Tuesday]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@Liberty Belle:
Agreed, McCain would be worse. As I said, I'll never vote Republican - ever (it's Atlanta214 who is thinking of supporting McCain). I'll admit that I might be a little more conflicted if I didn't know that my state would go Democratic even if the Democratic candidate were a small lump of green putty.
But logic is exactly why I won't vote for Hillary - because if the Democratic Party keeps putting up candidates like her, they'll keep losing. And given her support for the Iraq war, and for the (possible) Iran war, and her refusal to ever admit that she was wrong about authorizing the war, and her opposition to single-payer health care, and her support of the bankruptcy bill, and my very strong suspicion that she will carry on the privacy-violating and government secrecy policies of the Bush Administration - hell, I wouldn't be surprised at all if she continued the black-ops CIA prison sites and torturing policies - well, there's no way my conscience would allow a vote for someone like that.
Of course, if I lived in a state where my vote mattered, I'd be more anguished over this decision. But since my vote doesn't matter, I can try to send a message that candidates like Hillary simply won't do.
We can do much better.
America NEEDS much better leaders.
And logic tells me that if we don't let the parties know that, they'll just keep foisting the same incompetent, corrupt hacks on us over and over. We've seen what that does to the country. It has to stop.