Letters to the Editor

• ruffissama

  [Read the article: Looking past Pennsylvania]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  "Progressive candidates are effective human beings through their professional and personal evolution..plus alot of hard work. This was exemplified by Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy in '68 and Hart in '84."

  During the eight years Barack Obama was in the Illinois State Senate, he sponsored 823 bills:

  http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

  Here is information about his Senate record, as well as Hillary's:

  http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/20/224345/27

  As you can see, Hillary has a somewhat longer track record of legislative accomplishments in the U.S. Senate, although the disparity diminishes somewhat when you remove all the bills to name post offices and the resolution to support "the goals and ideals of Pancreatic Cancer Awareness Month."

  Even so, in total Obama is hundreds of bills more prolific than Hillary Clinton. It's unfair to compare them, of course, because Obama has held elective office four years longer than Hillary has, but still the margin is pretty wide.

  "Unlike the above mentioned candidates, Obamas'vision is all

  about HIM not the direction of this country or its populace."

  This is a highly subjective and speculative claim that is incapable of empirical scrutiny. It is "unfalsiable," as scientists would say. I'm actually of the opinion that the Clintons' vision is all about THEM and not the direction of this country or its populace. After all, haven't the Clintons shown a consistent tendency to place political expediency ahead of advancing a progressive agenda? Or do you think their co-opting of Republican policies such as Welfare Reform was a move in the right direction?

  "Should he win the election, you may find yourself disappointed, but more of a realist."

  Actually, one of my biggest political disappointments was Bill Clinton after 1992. I was so disappointed by his unprincipled triangulations prior to the 1996 elections that I actually didn't vote for him the second time (of course, I had the luxury of knowing that Bob Dole wouldn't win). Now, I'm not saying that there was nothing good about Clinton's presidency, but it certainly didn't live up to any of the idealistic rhetoric of his 1992 campaign.

  "If he loses, you may be surprised at how quickly his core believers more on."

  This is a silly, patronizing thing to say - as if you assume that I think that the world stands still for Barack Obama. This is an election campaign. The winner becomes part of history, the loser becomes a foot-note - that's what always happens.

  "The man is a well spoken, charming neophyte.There are people in the political area with good ideas and answers, its just not this guy.As Getrude Stein would say, "Theres' no there, there".

  Well, I have to say that Obama did a lot in the Illinois State Senate for a guy who has no good ideas and no answers. On the other hand, Hillary has all sorts of good ideas. Apparently, a disproportionate number of them have to do with what certain Post Offices and Federal buildings should be named - but hey, you have to start somewhere. Solutions for America don't just spring up overnight!

  "Its' not perfect, but our best bet is to get Howard Dean to make some decisions (not one of his strengths) and save the party from itself."

  It's funny that Obama is the elitist, but it's the Clinton backers who are suggesting that the stupid voters need to be protected from their own foolishness. Why don't we just go back to the days when the candidate is picked in a smoke-filled backroom? It would spare us the whole democratic part of democracy. (At which point, if you're Republican, you're supposed to chime in, "Whoever said the U.S. is a democracy? - it's a republic, stupid!")

  "Start talking to Gore,explain to the Obama people the concept of patience and timing (something the Republicans really understand) and stress the idea of what is best for the country as a whole, not certain segments."

  Apparently Obama's original plan was to wait until 2012 or 2016 to run for president, but he decided to run now because he thought that this would prove a pivotal election for the direction of the country. And quite frankly, a lot of his supporters feel the same way. A lot of us look at Clinton and think that a vote for her is a vote for the triangulating 90's - when the DLC tore the Democratic party from its progressive roots and argued that it had to "go corporate". So we see it as a choice between the Democratic party being the moderate wing of the Republican Party (Clinton) or finding its own voice again (Obama). There's a really great book by Rick Perlstein called "Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus," which argues that Goldwater's LOSING the 1964 election is what turned things around for the Republicans. They had a choice between being watered down Democrats (Nelson Rockefeller) or red meat conservatives (Goldwater). And the Republicans said, "let's be Republicans again." Practically all the "movement conservatives" who now run the Republican Party cite the Goldwater campaign as a pivotal moment for them. And the conservative movement rose out the ashes of the Goldwater campaign and the Republicans rose to dominance. Personally, I think the best option for the Democrats to capitalize on the historical moment is to stop being cowards and stand up for what we believe of - instead of sucking up to Richard Mellon Scaife and Rupert Murdoch. But that's just me. Maybe I am naive.

  "It is frustrating to intelligent, forward thinking people who had to endure two stolen elections and puppet president who lacks intelligence, compassion and a sense of history."

  It's also frustrating to watch the muddle-headed Democrats in Congress - Hillary among them - capitulate time and time, out of sheer political cowardice. "Maybe if I vote for the Iraq War, I can stay in office until every Post Office in New York state has a name..."

  Permalink Friday, April 25, 2008 09:59 AM