Letters to the Editor
-
@AKA Smith
Wait! Didn't we try that before in 2000 with the compassionate conservative still in office? The guy who promised us no nation building? That's right! George W. Bush ran in 2000 on a platform of bipartisanship and promising not to interfere unnecessarily in the business of other nations. He's a Uniter, Not a Divider!
Naah. I don't buy that comparison. My opinion of Bush hasn't changed significantly since the first time I laid eyes on him. I immediately knew he was a corrupt imbecile with the unique combination of ignorance and hubris to cause a lot of damage. Obama, I get pretty much the opposite feeling. Sure, his legislative record is sparse. So this is all gut-feeling type of stuff, based more on how he's conducted his campaign, his life story and how he communicates it, and his general policy positions. He seems like he's got a great head on his shoulders, and has some very bright people involved with him. In some ways, the fact that he hasn't wallowed in Washington mire for decades could be a plus.
I think between him and, as you put it, the Triangulator, I'll go with him. With Hillary, you truly never can count on her, because trianguation is constantly shifting for the political objective. I think Obama has actual principles that trump politics, at least at times. With HIllary, I don't get that.