Letters to the Editor
Baloo.
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 8
-
AJCalhoun
[Read the article: "She's not as bad as you think"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Great response to Texasgirl. That's the key Obamatroids, Obamabots, Obamaticons, whatever the hell they want to call us. Let's stay true to our candidate's message and keep this fight clean, sane, and intelligent. It's working for Obama. It will work for us too.
And since you're here to think, chew on this. Obama said a long time ago that he was willing to talk to our foes. He was ridiculed by his opponents, including the Clinton campaign, who said that he would be giving our enemies a propaganda tool to use against us. But, he didn't relent or back off from his position. I didn't have an opinion about this then but I do now.
Take Iran for example. Obama's approach would involve, among other things, direct diplomatic talks with Iran, over Iraq, nuclear weapons, etc. Clinton, on the other hand, in Wednesday's debate, proposed creating an umbrella organization of Arab states allied with the US to pressure Iran, i.e. an organization of Gulf states akin to NATO. That is a rather grand idea, don't you think? What would Russia and China, who get most of their oil from Iran, have to say about that? We wouldn't just be isolating and antagonizing Iran, we would be antagonizing these two other giants of world politics as well.
It's like her healthcare plan of the 1990s. It's well-intentioned but falls flat of its own weight and grandiosity. Not to mention that it has some far-reaching and serious consequences if not implemented with great caution, never mind how long it will take or whether it will even work.
Obama's diplomatic approach is far simpler and the sanest thing we can do. Talk to the fuckers. After all, Iraq is Iran's neighbor. It's a no-brainer. If Russia or China were to invade and occupy Mexico, would we not expect them to at least ask us for some advice? And if we were involved in covert operations there trying to limit their success, would we not dig our heels in even further if they tried to circumvent us and limit our influence in our own goddamn neighborhood?
I'm astounded we haven't talked to Iran yet, given how things are going in Iraq. Instead, this administration has a hard-on for another war.
Surely we cannot trust Iran to be straight shooters but they are human beings after all, not demons. Maybe a talk would do all of humanity some good. And if not, we always reserve the right to bomb the crap out of them. I mean, it's not like you need permission for that.
Is this really what passes for idealism these days? Am I wrong to think Clinton's approach is only a tad better than McCain's 'victory with honor, pursue our enemies to the gates of hell' bullshit?
I think Clinton's approach shows a serious lack of judgment. She knows how to calculate but she doesn't know or isn't good at factoring in the human side of the equation.
This isn't surprising if you know anything about the Myers-Briggs. It's typical of her type (ESTJ). Her inferior function is F, which means she has a problem empathizing. This falls in line perfectly with her tough girl personae.
-
Old farts
[Read the article: Obama can't close the deal ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Old farts and sexism helped Clinton to prevail in Pennsylvannia, the second oldest state in the country.
Obama will win both North Carolina and Indiana and the super cowards will at last end the race and come to his side as they should have all along.
Clinton should have dropped out a long time ago. Everything else is a sideshow. Clinton is a horrible person for not having bowed out gracefully a month ago. HORRIBLE!