Letters to the Editor
markworthi
Published Letters: 18 Editor's Choice: 4
-
There's no equivalence...
[Read the article: Hillary's team crosses the line]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The campaign tactics used by Hillary Clinton and her increasingly frantic slurrogates (coined here for the first time) hardly sink to the same level as the sometimes regrettable emanations from Obama's side. Yes, Obama's people have occasionally allowed manners to slip, attacking Clinton as McCarthyite or monstrous. In most cases, Obama has unambiguously rejected that sort of language, sometimes even dismissing his campaign workers. And for the most part, the negatives that have been slung her way are substantive and pertain to real questions about her ability to lead.
For example, it's not unreasonable to repeatedly call her on her willingness to lie down for George Bush. She did support the war in Iraq, not merely giving authority to GW and his band of thugs to use the power in the improbable circumstance that he might use it, but knowing full well (as the rest of us did) that war was an eventuality. How quickly you Hil Supporters forget her beaming approbation at Bush's State of the Union Address a few years ago, when he gave a glowing report of the war's progress.
Also, is integrity not important for a President? She claims to have been instrumental in ending the unrest in Northern Ireland, a claim which at the very least is an exaggeration and is more likely a big fat lie. Her support for NAFTA was as politically expedient during her husband's tenure as it is inexpedient in Pennsylvania and Ohio today. And it's important that we have a President whose toughness is forged by taking tough, perhaps unpopular, stances rather than fabricated under the duress of imaginary battlefields in Bosnia.
These are not empty personal attacks! They should and do rub us the wrong way, as they give evidence of what type of presidency we may expect from Ms. Clinton.
Her attacks on Obama, on the other hand, are made with the full knowledge that they are without any substance. She knows full well than Obama is not racist, yet would like nothing more than to perpetuate the Reverend Wright story, to keep the issue of race at the forefront of this campaign. She knows very well that he's not muslim, yet would like to bob on the ocean of xenophobia, keeping afloat a contrary perception; and now her insinuation is that he's anti-semitic by association with General McPeak, an esteemed member of our armed forces.
What is most insidious about the direction of her campaign is her constant innuendo, a lighting trick that both she and her husband are using to perfection. One almost admires for their frankness, by comparison, the naive crudeness with which James Carville's remarks are uttered.
No, these are two quite different types of people, and what's scary is that people can't perceive a difference. Careful, or you may get what you deserve.
Mark W
-
Ancient Assyrian, you've misunderstood me...
[Read the article: Hillary's team crosses the line]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can see why, after re-reading my post; the first paragraph is misworded, as I wrote hastily. However, my post does NOT trash Obama. My point is that Clinton's tactics are much wose than Obama's, and of an entirely different nature, one that appeals to our worst instinct.
Please don't mistake me for an Obama detractor. I'm behind him all the way!
Mark W