Letters to the Editor
Picko
Published Letters: 265 Editor's Choice: 11
-
KateTex
[Read the article: Clinton camp uses "monster" comment for fundraising appeal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"My guiding philosophy is best expressed by Romain Rolland: 'Pessimism of the intelligence, optimism of the will.'"
What is that even supposed to mean?
"What strikes me about your last message is that we both seem to want the same things - but I see Hillary Clinton as the true believer, the most likely to steer America toward them."
On what basis do you hold this belief? What does Hillary Clinton truly believe, for that matter? I don't mean to entirely discount the good things that Bill and Hillary Clinton have done, but can you name a single major reform that the Clintons have enacted that wasn't a Republican reform?
In a way, I don't blame the Republicans for passing Welfare Reform and Bankruptcy Reform and the Patriot Act and all that other garbage - because at least it's consistent with their ideology. But either the Clinton have embraced these things insincerely as a matter of political expediency (which makes them opportunists) or they have embraced them because they sincerely believe in them (which makes them ideological indistinguishable from the Republicans). Is this what you mean by pessimism of the intellect perhaps?
-
kufir77
[Read the article: McCain loses his patience]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I'm guessing he deals with the people that REALLY matter (i.e. NOT the media) in a totally different way. Obviously, he has made it this far with his temper, so I'm not too concerned."
"He's kind of like that boss you've had thats a total prick to his subordinates, but when he gets with people on his own level, he interacts with them in an entirely different and effective way."
"It's kind of refreshing to see a politician be himself and let loose on reporters for asking stupid questions."
1. You guessed wrong. He has a reputation of being a hothead with people who REALLY matter, like other Republican Senators:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1714082,00.html
Salon did an article about how people in the U.S. MILITARY think McCain is a bit of a hothead:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/03/06/commander_in_chief/index.html?source=search&aim=/news/feature
2. Who's to say that the media don't matter? The media is the means through an informed electorate learns about their elected officials. How are we supposed to hold our leaders accountable if every time someone in the media asks him a mildly uncomfortable question, he gets all pissy? Isn't that a sign of contempt for the electorate's right to know? Under a McCain presidency, are reporters only going to be allowed to ask questions that don't piss him off? (For the record, the media are not the president's subordinates - the press is only subordinate to the executive branch in totalitarian regimes where the newspapers are merely organs of propaganda.)
3. Is it a stupid question because it deals with apparent contradictions in McCain's public statements about whether he had a conversation with John Kerry about being his V.P.? If he said at the time that he didn't have a conversation with Kerry and then turns around to chastise the reporter because "everybody knows that we had a conversation," hasn't he admitted that he had originally lied about the matter? And if he's going to contend that he didn't lie, shouldn't he explain the apparent contradiction instead of just flipping out? Is that straight talk or stonewalling?
-
Logical response?
[Read the article: More on Clinton camp infighting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Yes, it was a political decision, as it would have been for Obama and every other Senator. In the context of the times, "serious doubts" would hardly have been a good political criteria for opposing the authorization. "I'm not sure, so let's just wait and see if they sell WMD to some terrorist group that wipes out one of our cities, If that happens, then maybe I'll change my mind." Give me a break. Clinton was in good company in voting for the authorization, and I believe, if Obama had been in the Senate, he would have been in that company."
Let's see... 21 out of the 50 Democrats in the Senate at the time voted against the War, so if Obama had voted against it, he would also have been in good company. Are you suggesting that the senators who voted AGAINST the war were the ones exercising poor judgment? (By the way, I'm glad you're so confident in asserting that Obama's anti-war stance in 2002 was merely a function of his not yet being a U.S. Senator - a handy assumption to make if you want to diminish the difference between candidates when the contrast is not in your own candidate's favor.)
-
opus
[Read the article: Obama says Clinton ad "straight out of the Republican playbook"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're absolutely right. It shows poor judgment that Obama said he took Hillary Clinton at her word.
That would be almost be as stupid as voting for the Iraq War because you took George W. Bush at his word. Only an imbecile would do that.
Obama should have called Clinton a liar to her face.
Of course, then Howard Wolfson would have had a fainting fit because Obama had engaged in a "negative attack."
I think it's really cute that the Clinton team claim that they have no way of knowing whether the ad was leaked by their staff. How could they ever ask every one of their 700 staff members if they were responsible? I mean, it would be almost as hard as George W. Bush trying to find out if someone, say, leaked the name of an undercover C.I.A. operative. It just can't be done!
The tactics we are getting from the Clinton campaign now are the same tactics we can expect from a Hillary Clinton presidency. Let's not have any illusions about that.