Letters to the Editor

• I'm Voting In Ohio In March

  [Read the article: Hillary's time of troubles]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Here's who I'm voting for and why:

  Barack Obama's campaign has done a very good job of switching his original message about hope and change into a referendum on the Clintons themselves; i.e., with phrases like "turn the page," "break with the past," "clean slate." We all know what he's referring to and I have to say that it's intellectually dishonest of him to not just come right out and talk about it. Clearly, he's stuck-in-the-muck of the past and has no trouble revisiting it as long as he scores points.

  Hillary Clinton's campaign's major mistake was in not preparing her and the campaign's Field structure for a Primary election on any competitive level. Assuming her wide pre-Primary percentage gaps would hold up, the campaign didn't appear to be structured for the intensive field operations that was necessary to especially win the caucuses. They should've recognized that they errored in Iowa by not going after first-time caucus goers and young adults, and then adjust the field strategy accordingly. They were out-hustled.

  I'm still not convinced that Bill Clinton or her campaign staff did or said anything that was racially charged. But I did see since South Carolina an indignant, chip on the shoulder, Obama silently play it to the hilt while his campaign provided the background noise. Didn't think much of that.

  I'm also beginning to detect a certain tone in Obama's voice and that of his campaign staff these days, coming off these victories, and all. It's like he's saying that if we question him, dare to ask for facts or point them out, or disagree, we are all cynics, pessimists, or naysayers. Now, that sounds like the current White House administration!

  Actually, there's not too much difference between Obama and Bush if the ideology is removed. Both were resume-lite when they first ran; neither had really done much of anything for any length of time, or spend any serious time accomplishing something in one field; both where Ivy League educated; both claimed to be "uniters;";both refer to government as a bureaucracy to be managed by others; both were short on the facts and specifics but long on the platitudes and one-liners; they both need a learning curve; and neither received much scrutiny by the press while running in their primaries (and Bush didn't get much in the General either). However, I do think that Obama has more intellectual curiosity and interest in learning and passion for the job than Bush ever did about anything in his life.

  Hillary Clinton, by virtue of being in the White House for 8 years, understands immediately what has to be done; she knows what transition will entail; and she has worked her entire life to prepare herself for the position. She would be a strong and capable leader for our country. She would keep us safe and she would be nobody's fool abroad. She might be somewhat controversial, and if she becomes the nominee we might have to endure some Fox News "Where are they now?" crap digging up Lewinsky and Friends. But it's a small price to pay to get the leader who will get the job done for us without taking two years to learn it.

  I do not think our country, after 8 years of the mess we've had, and now in a recession, can afford to wait one or two years for someone to get acquainted with the job. I heard Micelle Obama say on Larry King that she thought the American people want a President who is not afraid to say he was wrong, and that Obama would be strong enough to admit when he was wrong, and that he will make mistakes. Well, do we really think that millions of independent voters are saying to themselves tonight, "Gee, wouldn't it be nice to have a President who admits when she/he is wrong and plays well with others?" No. They are saying, "How are we going to get out of this mess and when are we getting out of it and what are you going to do about it and do I believe that you can do it?"

  I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama makes a compelling argument to just break clean of the entire mess - a kind of "throw the baby out with the bath" argument. But I think that's a false choice: either we relive the Clinton nighmare OR we let a rookie in the Oval Office - again. Isn't that how we ended up with Bush back in 2000?

  Hillary Clinton is one of the hardest working public servants we've ever had. She's been preparing herself for a long time to do this, and she is every bit as deserving of our nomination as some resume-lite upstart - probably more so. Hillary Clinton could become as great a President as Franklin D. Roosevelt. She certainly understands the history, and she understands how government can make a country great when our leaders are so motivated to do so. She certainly doesn't regard government as merely a bureaucracy to be managed.

  Obama says he's the one who is really making history if he's elected. No he's not. With Obama as the Democratic nominee, we'll have yet two males to choose from again this November - and neither of them is what our country really needs right now. And old guy who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and follow the Bush doctrine down the path to more destruction - and a guy who means well, but hey, let's face it, he doesn't know shit from shinola about the job.

  No, to truly break with the past, turn a page, start clean, and all the rest of the Obama-isms, we need a women in the White House - this woman. Can we win with Hillary? YES WE CAN!

  Permalink Monday, February 11, 2008 11:26 PM