Letters to the Editor
BadgerBlue
Published Letters: 190 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Saintzak
[Read the article: Clinton and the men, again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey with so many tag-teaming up here questioning your statements, I almost mistook you for pooooor abused Hillary Clinton up on that stage last week. As for wearing sexy clothes in attempting to close the deal, I don't think it makes a person a whore. Salespeople often have to resort to desperate means when trying to peddle a product or service that can't sell itself. I'm just happy I don't have to resort to that to make a living. While there are companies that frown on the tactic, there are others that have no issue with it and some that will even encourage it.
Should Clinton or her campaign cry victim? That's for her and her campaign to decide. She's built her organization on the 2000 and 2004 Bush models so it's really no surprise that she's using the tactics she's using. Her stubborn stand on her Iraq vote, Kyl-Lieberman double-talk and other pandering towards Republican hot-plate issues repulse me enough that I'd rather have anybody on that stage than her in the White House with the exception of Richardson. In a way she almost had to use the "all the guys are sexist" card in light of how the aftermath of the debate turned out. Can you imagine the reaction among her big money donors and blindly loyal supporters had she said "Yeah, Biden, Dodd, Edwards & Obama had strong performances up there and they did well. It was bound to happen that I wouldn't dominate every debate with so many quality candidates up there."
If 2000 and 2004 taught us anything, it's that candidates that are "in it to win it" will attempt to win by slandering any other candidates. In 2000, Bush's campaign, and subsequently his supporters, tagged McCain as "crazy" and pushed the disgusting falsehood of fathering an illegitimate child to voters that they thought would buy into it and they did. In 2004, they sold even more idiots on the lie that Kerry didn't deserve any of his medals and the Kool-Aid was gulped down. It figures that almost four years later, there would be enough idiots to gobble up the slop from the Clinton campaign that she was the victim of sexism rather than face even the possibility that at least some of her many critics have valid concerns about her sincerity and integrity. I mean look at who she married for Pete's sake.
-
The question of drivers liscences does have merit
[Read the article: The Swift Boating of Hillary Clinton?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With the odds at even money that the nominees from both parties may hail from New York, it's certainly a question that could well be asked again and how the two candidates respond to it in October of 2008 could possibly have an impact on whether New York winds up red or blue on election day. I can understand Clinton's motives for why she kept trying to triangulate her initial response to the question when Russert posed it to her. She doesn't want to lock herself into a position where Guliani could later exploit for gain. It's not out of the realm that Guliani would attack her as "soft on illegals" as it could potentially reap dividends for him by that time in multiple forms. Republican voters might feel more compelled to go to the voting booth for him if he could get the focus off of his party's issues with him on immigration, and the most effective way to get Republican voters' attention is to start lobbing attacks on the Dem nominee. And who better to demonize than her in a sleazy attempt to fire up the Republican base?
It's probably the best and maybe only strategy for someone with a polarization rating that extends into radioactive territory among so much of the electorate. But even the best strategy wasn't going to get Clinton through every single debate without eventually recieving scrutiny for exhibiting the patterns that were pointed out by so many. I find it hard to believe that her campaign wouldn't have anticipated so many others spotting what was becoming obvious. That alone makes me very skeptical of the "sexism" ploy they responded with. Before that irresponsible charge was made, I would have for sure voted for her if she eventually achieved the nomination. Not anymore. She's starting to conduct herself in a manner that's way too much like what's already in the White House right now. There's no excuses for that.