Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
@ Rosenkavalier
[Read the article: Boys against girl?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Hillary was finessing gender expectations as suggested, I wouldn't even call it "playing dirty." It may be disingenuous, but she's merely using every perceived advantage she has. After all, everyone else is using everything THEY have against HER.
As political fouls go, this is so minor as not to be worth mentioning. We can't even be sure that we're characterizing this statement correctly. Meanwhile, it is almost indisputable that Hillary's sex is consistently used against her, both openly and by insinuation.
Actually one of the things that I LIKE about Hillary is that she does whatever it takes to win. Unlike Gore and Kerry, who seemed to follow some bizarre self-defeating etiquette that prevented them from running effective campaigns, Hillary is a fighter, just like her husband. Neither is pure, but they do what they have to in order to get results...
-
@ 6Stringer
[Read the article: Boys against girl?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, give me a break. I think you're overestimating the omnipotence of an ex-President and a junior senator from New York.
What I'm saying is that a Clinton campaign will do everything it takes to get elected. It hardly makes a difference if a candidate adheres to ideological purity if they don't get elected in the first place.
Am I happy about all of either Clintons' policy positions? Hardly. I actually didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 1996 because of serious disagreements with many of his policies - but also because I knew he was going to win anyway, and I didn't have to worry that Bob Dole's much worse policies would prevail.
My point is that I haven't seen much evidence that the other Democratic candidates have the fight in them to win the general election. Obama has had a couple of promising moments - but his campaign organization seems adrift. Edwards - well, Edwards couldn't even win a vice-presidential debate with Dick Cheney in 2004, so I don't hold out much hope for him.
Hillary, on the other hand, runs her campaign like a military operation. They may make mistakes, but they mean business.
I'm really sick of people falling into the "Hillary is just as bad as the Republicans" trap. This sort of reasoning should have gone out of style with Bush v. Gore. You may not be entirely happy with the sort of overly-cautious middle-of-the-road politics of the DLC candidates, but it's hard to dispute that they're better than their Republican counterparts.
If you want to use Hillary's vote for the war against her, you're doing exactly what Karl Rove intended that vote to do in the first place. Maybe Hillary was stupid to fall into that trap, fine, but when push comes to shove, if Hillary ends up being the Democratic nominee, I am absolutely certain that we'll be much worse off if we end up throwing the election for the Republicans.
-
Hys-teria
[Read the article: Boys against girl?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I love all these sweeping statements about Hillary's being unfit for office because of a bit of ill-chosen spin. Especially since, as has been pointed out below by several posters, it's not altogether clear that we're interpreting the intent of the statement correctly.
When Republicans whine that they are treated unfairly by a "liberal media" do we say that this disqualifies them for office because they're not "tough enough" - or is this merely because we recognize it as a tactical move to influence coverage in their favor?
I dare say in a week no one will remember this whole ridiculous brouhaha. It's bizarre to think that in a year this is going to influence the election one way or another.
-
@ moira kelly
[Read the article: Boys against girl?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, you're right. I shouldn't have characterized Rick Lazio as a "sacrificial lamb." I didn't mean to take anything away from Hillary's victory in 2000. I guess I said that because Lazio was the last-minute replacement candidate who jumped in after Giuliani bailed. He was well-financed, and the Republicans sorely wanted to defeat Hillary. So I take back that "sacrifical lamb" comment.
-
@ 6Stringer
[Read the article: Boys against girl?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually I don't love the Clintons. I'm highly ambivalent about them. As I mentioned, I didn't vote for Bill Clinton in 1996 because I disagreed with many of his right-leaning policies. Of course, I had the luxury of doing that because I knew Bob Dole would not win.
Ideally, I would like a candidate more in line with my actual political positions. At this point, I like Chris Dodd the most of the candidates in the race - in fact, if the New York primary makes any difference at all, I'm probably going to vote for Dodd.
In making my comments about Hillary, I was merely observing that one thing that she has in her favor is that she will run a strong campaign - unlike Kerry and Gore. I think that's a valid consideration. So, while I may disagree with her on many things, I like the fact that she fights to win.
That hardly sounds like cult of personality to me.