Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
The Notorious W.E.S.
[Read the article: Clinton camp uses "monster" comment for fundraising appeal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Because if she becomes the nominee, her cause becomes the Democratic Party's cause.
I don't think the sort of trash-talking you engage in accomplishes much of anything. It sows emnity between Democrats and endangers our chances of emerging from this primary season a unified party.
This is how I think things will play out:
Hillary stands a good chance of carrying Pennsylania. Obama has a good chance of sweeping most of the rest of the states, because they are the sorts of places he tends to do well in.
As for Florida and Michigan, I think there will be new primaries, which I think Clinton has a decent chance of winning. (Personally, I think re-doing those primaries works in Clinton's favor, because it erases any stigma attached to those delegates, and if she wins those primaries, it gives her another day or two of CLINTON WINS! headlines).
So they go into the convention with no clear winner in delegates. Which leaves it up to the superdelegates. Now, my general feeling is that insiders in the Democratic Party are not great risk-takers. From their point of view, Clinton is a known quantity, Obama more of a gamble. So they try to work out an accomodation where Clinton runs at the top of the ticket, with Obama as V.P.
I don't think that's a bad ticket. I think it re-unifies the party, and sends us into the general election with a ticket that can beat McCain.
Then, after Clinton's out of office, Obama is a natural successor.
Now, as an Obama supporter, this is not my ideal scenario, but it's a scenario I could live with.
So why make it harder for me to reconcile myself to this idea?
(Of course, if Obama wins Pennsylvania, that clearly strengthens his hand considerably; and if he were to win the primary in Michigan, say, it would tip things even further. Obviously, no one knows what's going to happen.)
-
KateTex
[Read the article: Clinton camp uses "monster" comment for fundraising appeal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With all due respect, that posting was just a long-winded way of calling Obama's campaign a fairy tale.
What makes Obama's campaign more of a fairy tale than Hillary's?
For instance, I think a lot of Hillary's experience is a Potemkin village, an illusion that Clinton supporters accept as reality because of a willing suspension of disbelief. Thirty-five years of experience? Really? Can Laura Bush claim thirteen years of executive office experience because she was married to W. when he was a governor and president?
It's strange that Hillary supporters keep claiming that Hillary's experience is what causes them to support her. People were clamoring for her to run ever since she was elected to the Senate - when she actually had LESS experience than Obama currently has -so how can people claim with a straight face that it is her experience that is motivating their support of Hillary?
And what battles has Hillary fought with grit and determination, except for battles for her own self-aggrandizement? What, for instance, has she done to fight the Bush administration for the past seven years?
When I think of the real world, I sometimes think of the welfare recipients who suffer from the consequences of Bill Clinton's welfare reform bill, or people who are drowning in debt because of the Bankruptcy reform bill which Hillary voted for, or families which have lost their sons and daughters in the Iraq War because Hillary Clinton (among others) lived in a fairy tale world where George Bush could be taken at his word.
-
Brian Lupiani
[Read the article: Clinton camp uses "monster" comment for fundraising appeal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Unfortunately for your proposed compromise, I don't think there's any evidence that Hillary Clinton is actually qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. I would hate to see the next open seat filled on the basis of political patronage, especially since neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton has shown a conspicuous record of respect for civil liberties.
-
RealityCounts
[Read the article: Clinton camp uses "monster" comment for fundraising appeal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Um, didn't the Empty Suit beat the War Hero in 2004?
I'm sorry - that line of reasoning is just too defeatist for me to accept. I mean, why frame the debate in terms most favorable to Republicans?
Let's review some of the most recent presidential elections:
George H.W. Bush (war hero) v. Bill Clinton (draftdodger)
Winner: Draft Dodger
Robert Dole (war hero) v. Bill Clinton (draftdodger)
Winner: Draft Dodger
George W. Bush (draftdodger) v. John Kerry (war hero)
Winner: Draft Dodger
Where would Bill Clinton or George W. Bush be if they let a silly thing like a war hero scare them?
Do we need reminding that this particular war hero is running on a plan to continue an unpopular war and to privatize social security?
Can we all just put a hold on being self-loathing self-doubting Democrats for the next nine months, until we win this frickin' election? Stop acting like a bunch of masochistic nerds fantasizing about being beaten up by the schoolyard bully!
-
kufir77
[Read the article: McCain loses his patience]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, if you're a political candidate who has already been branded a hothead and you allow yourself to fly off the handle on such a thin pretext when speaking to a JOURNALIST, you either (a) are not very smart, since you don't have the sense to diminish your liabilities, or (b) you really do have poor emotional control.
What's he going to do with foreign leaders when he's supposed to be engaging in diplomacy? Get pissed off, tell them to "fuck off" and then hope that they will accept his next-day apology?