Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
When President Giuliani, McCain or Romney are taking the oath of office
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]are the anti-Hillary contingent going to be happy, knowing that they stood on principle? Because I really don't want to hear any of you guys complaining when they appoint a few more right-wing hacks to the Supreme Court, or go to war with Iran, or give our remaining civil liberties the ax.
Some of these complaints that I'm hearing about Hillary are the same complaints I heard about Gore in 2000 and about Kerry in 2004. And I guess I see the point to a certain extent. But the reality is that this country is headed for disaster if we have another Republican president in the White House. You're damn right that this has nothing to do with gender!
Sometimes you just have to make the best of a bad situation. The fact is, Hillary is doing the things that people do to become president. Maybe if Democrats were more realistic about presidential politics, we would have a much better track record than we do.
To paraphrase the movie "Aliens": Hey, maybe you haven't been keeping up on current events, but lately we have been getting our asses kicked!
Within my lifetime, we have had two Democratic presidents: Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. And if you listen to some on the left, we really shouldn't have had Bill Clinton. Which leaves us with Jimmy Carter.
So, if we want to have somebody other than Hillary Clinton, then we need to get off our asses and get to work for Obama or Edwards or Chris Dodd! Right now, none of them are exactly setting the world on fire in the polls, but, hey, we're voters, presumably we can change that!
But kvetching, kvetching, kvetching about Hillary gets us absolutely nowhere.
-
@ AnnieW
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, of course not - I'm not saying that Kerry lost because of mean things that the other Democratic candidates said in the primaries - who remembers the primaries when the general election finally comes around?
No, what I'm saying is that every four years we hear the same litany of complaints about the safe, centrist DLC candidate, and every time the safe, centrist DLC candidate ends up being the nominee.
Now - as sad as it may be - Bill Clinton may have won the presidency in no small part because of compromises that make those on the left view him as a sell-out. After all, if the electoral process rewarded candidates with the political positions of a Dennis Kuccinich, then Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton would have Kuccinich's positions.
There's at least one thing to be said about candidates whose political positions are poll-tested: their positions are at least somewhat reflective of popular opinion.
Actually, though, one of Hillary's biggest liabilities is that she has staked out a major position that is contrary to popular opinion - she has failed to repudiate her Iraq vote. It would be very easy for her to do as Edwards as done, and - now that the war has turned out poorly - repudiate it to please Democratic primary voters. I think if she was purely a political opportunist she would have done this in a flash. I don't think her war position helps her much with anyone - it turns off most Democrats, prevents her from picking up any disaffected anti-war independents, and the pro-war Republicans are never going to vote for her anyway.
Sometimes I really don't know what to make of her - just as I don't really know what to make of her husband. Really all I want is the best candidate to beat the Republicans, because I'm absolutely certain that no matter who the Democratic candidate is, they're going to be much much better than the Republican counterpart.
And I honestly don't know who the best candidate is. I would like to see Obama give Hillary a run for her money, but unless he pulls off some early upsets, that's not going to happen, and his campaign seems to be losing, rather than picking up, momentum.
-
@ AnnieW
[Read the article: "Boys against girl," Part II]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with everything you said in your last post.
There is one factor to take into consideration, though: politically, Hillary always seems to gain when she is perceived as the victim. I don't know what it is, but she never seems so sympathetic as when she is being attacked.
And the Republicans never look quite so ugly as when they are attacking the Clintons.