Letters to the Editor
OESTra
Published Letters: 5
-
Other than John Edwards, the Democratic field is weak
[Read the article: How strong is the Democratic presidential field?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]50% of the country say they won't vote for Hillary Clinton no matter what. Starting from there, she can forget it.
As for Barack Obama, the simple fact is that yes, his race does matter. Only two states in the history of this country have elected by popular vote of the people of that state black Americans to a federal, statewide office (the Senate), and that's Massachusetts (Edward Brooke) and Illinois (Mosely-Braun & Obama).
In addition, only 2 states have ever elected a black person to the statewide Governorship in the history of this country, and that's Massachusetts (Deval Patrick) and Virginia (Douglas Wilder). Deval Patrick won against a woman in a state that has never elected a woman governor by popular vote, and Douglas Wilder won by less than 1/2 of 1%.
So, the Democrats think they have a strong field because Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are bouyed by the fact that the two largest Democratic constituencies are women and blacks (and a third group that likes the name "Clinton"), so when those two groups coalesce around the two of them for purely subjective reasons, which you know is the case because Hillary Clinton hasn't said much about policy specifics for them to be supporting her for her "ideas," then it looks like they are strong, when what they really are is "intriguing."
Meanwhile, in the lion's share of polls out there, John Edwards does better against Republicans than Clinton and Obama, and he tends to have much better favorability ratings.
Now, the television media has been on a quest to destroy John Edwards, so his unfavorabilities have gone up, and his poll numbers have dropped, but they all know that he's the strongest against Republicans.
The Republicans and the media are betting that the disdain for Hillary Clinton would destroy her in a general election, and that only having 3 states in the history of the country to ever elect a black person to a statewide office would kill Obama if he was trying to win states as the Democratic nominee in 2008.
More than likely, they are correct. The Democratic field is weak...if you stop and honestly think about it.
-
Hillary Clinton is not experienced
[Read the article: How strong is the Democratic presidential field?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In fact, she is no more experienced than Edwards and Obama are, and not only is she a lot less experienced than Dodd, Richardson, and Biden are, but she is a lot less experienced than Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are.
Yet, her campaign and the cable news networks that speak for her also, are touting her as the candidate that offers a unique combination of "experience and change."
B.S. Dennis Kucinich offers 3 times the experience and change that she does.
She offers neither. Hillary Clinton is a status quo candidate, period. That's why big business is all in her camp. That's why her chief economic advisor is a UNION-BUSTER (Mark Penn). That's why the insurance companies are backing her, since if she becomes President, it's been said on another site that I read last week, that her health care agenda will basically be a windfall for the insurance companies.
Hillary Clinton = inexperienced and stagnation.
This country needs to go back prior to Reagan on economic issues in order to turn around, not a more DLC Republican-lite view of the world.
CHINA IS THREATENING to sink our nation with the debt that it holds, and people think going back to a Clinton is what we need?
We need big, bold change, transformational change. Hillary Clinton doesn't offer it.
Give me Edwards, because Kucinich can't win
-
John Edwards is right, of course
[Read the article: John Edwards turns on his fellow Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While reading Michael Scherer's piece, you can't help but see that he is clearly snarking at much of what Edwards says.
"In particular, he has tried to paint Democrats who continue to accept money from corporate lobbyists or political committees as part of the problem, not the solution."
That's all you need to know. A part of the problem, and one that most people won't disagree is a part of the problem.
"...turns on his fellow Democrats" is spin.
Pointing out the truth doesn't change the fact that it's still the truth. Washington, DC is a cesspool. It's the type of place that makes Democrats and Republicans into hybrids. The longer they are there, the more alike they become.
Problem for the Democrats is they are becoming too much like Republicans, instead of the other way around.
-
I'd change one thing that I just said, though
[Read the article: John Edwards turns on his fellow Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not so much about how "long" they've been in DC, as it is about whether being there that long has led them to adopt some of the same ways that are a part of the problem.
Someone like Ted Kennedy or John Conyers or John Kerry, for example, they've been there a long time, but they haven't become the corporate whores that many of the other Democrats in DC have become.
I guess it's a matter of your principles.
For many, being in DC for a long time corrupts them, but it's not that way for all of them.
I just wanted to clarify that.
-
Then again...
[Read the article: John Edwards turns on his fellow Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...[I'm working this out mentally], I guess there is a reason that they call the DLC Democrats "NEW DEMOCRATS" Neoliberals.
The problem isn't with a lot of the pre-Clinton era Democrats, as far as being in the pockets of corporate America.