Letters to the Editor
furtail
Published Letters: 123 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Hypocritical Americans
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I applaud Obama for taking on this issue.
For some of the posters who claim that Obama should leave his church, because Wright is a "racist", why should he?
Can't people accept contradictions in life, that people are complex, and full of the seeds of both hate and love? Actually, I find Obama's actions more Christian than any of the so-called white evangelicals on the airwaves because he chooses to acknowledge the imperfections in people and forgive them. Isn't this what Jesus preached? I'm happy he hasn't thrown Wright under the bus, as did, say, Mitt Romney with the Senator Craig scandal.
Most Americans claim to be Christian but I see little evidence of a willingness to live or think the true teachings of Christ. Kudos to Obama.
-
Texas Demo-
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yep. As much as I really hate Clinton's campaign style and detest Clinton's vote to authorize the war (she didn't realize that Bush would ACTUALLY INVADE??), I take Clinton at her word, that she really has implied she made a mistake (Clinton has a tough time saying "I screwed up!"), and, if she does win the nomination, of course I will support her and give her campaign money (she'll need it).
I've railed against Clinton's tactics (MI and FL delegates, despite agreeing to not "participate") and I will continue to do so, but, of course, I will forgive Clinton and support her, primarily because her positions and her track record tell me that she will be vastly superior to McCain. The war, the economy, reversing the massive transfer of wealth from the working class to the super-rich, the decaying infrastructure, etc., these are the topics on my mind come November, and the hoopla and controversies over her campaign style will pale in comparison. For me, that won't matter.
So, to answer your question, yes, I hope that all Dems WILL forgive Hillary, and forget, in the interest of winning, by putting her in the White House should she win the nomination.
-
Joan, you make me crazy!!!
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's long strange journey on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your piece here about Hillary is the best I've seen yet.
I wholeheartedly agree 100%: I would LOVE to see/hear Hillary make a speech about the war, get it over with, and lay out in grand terms how she would extricate us from this disaster. I guarantee you that I would feel much better about her nomination should she win.
She is a very smart woman and she should do it: she has basically NOTHING to lose and everthing to gain. An honest admission about what she was thinking, how she was thinking, in 2002 would be extremely refreshing. I think she would certainly gain some fans.
-
No way
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Shapiro writes
But it is also shaky to argue -- as many Obama partisans do passionately -- that the pledged delegate totals from the primaries and caucuses should override any independent decision making on the part of the 796 automatic superdelegates (mostly members of Congress and the Democratic National Committee) who will ultimately provide the winning candidate with the margin of victory. Most Democratic voters will have chosen between Clinton and Obama back in February -- and they could have changed their minds along the way. These votes were a valid expression of sentiment when they were cast, but they lose their potency as an expression of the pure popular will as they age. The gap between Super Tuesday and the Democratic convention (more than 200 days) is roughly double the time between the November election and the presidential inauguration. If the convention were really designed to be a rubber stamp of the primaries, why not vote right before the delegates arrive in Denver? What was the reason for such early voting? All the Democrats had a plane to catch?
Although I do agree that "the rules are the rules" and they should stay that way for this 2008 primary (NO FL and MI revotes, superdelegates ARE independent, the inconsistencies from state to state with regard to voter eligibility), I strongly disagree with Shapiro about the prospect of the superdelegates throwing the crown to the candidate with fewer votes. Only the Democrats would do something so incredibly stupid, even though the rules allow. The supers ALSO have the option of NOT upsetting the result of the pledged count. It seems extremely unlikely that Hillary can win the pledged delegate count, and therefore if the supers were to crown her rather than Obama, who would have more delegates and most likely more votes, we would have an uproar of colossal proportions.
My criticisms of Clinton have not changed. I *do* believe that she places her interests above her constituents (Iraq War vote), her interests above those of her party, and she will push to the limit a scorched-earth policy to win via the supers. I maintain this is extremely sleazy, self-centered, and vain. The most recent email from the Clinton campaign, that Obama wants to disenfranchise voters in the remaining eight states, even North Carolina, is ludicrous. The arguments from the Clinton campaign as to why Clinton is the better candidate change as often as the days of the week. It's really laughable. Now I know why she does better with the less educated, because they obviously buy the crap.
However, Shapiro does have a good point about the protracted process. I've long told my mother (who is a devout Hillary fan-she fits that demographic of an older female voter waiting her whole life to put a woman in the White House regardless of the content of her character) that this long process benefits McCain, and that I would not be at all surprised if he won. After all, one should not misunderestimate the stupidity of the American people. It's a lot higher than any of us thinks.
-
KateTex
[Read the article: The Democrats' anti-momentum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]RIGHT ON!!!! I'm with you 100% on that one. I like the idea of everyone getting equal money, equal air-time. If that were true this time around, then maybe neither Clinton nor Obama would have done so well. Each appeared certainly more centrist than some of the other candidates (Kucinich, Richardson, Edwards).