Letters to the Editor
-
Candidates and journalists
With respect to empire, we remain a largely one party state. Our world political illusions may well require a series of catastrophes before they are replaced by a more rational estimate of our national possibilities. That much said, even an excellent journalist like Walter Shapiro seems to prefer quasi-ironic distance to ---- let us say--systematically asking those so enthusiastic about our army about their military records.
It is journalistic discretion, one sidedly exercised, which allows the Klaghorn Congresspersons and desktop heroes of the research centers (and of the Democratic Party's rhetorically ferocious special forces in Washington foreign policy operations) to engage in their entirely vicarious heroism. Thoswe of us who pay a bit of attention to what the outside world thinks of this (one only has to ask, Mr. Shapiro, your colleagues from the foreign media and an indiscreet diplomat or two) know how repugnant others find it. It is repugant, indeed: one is reminded of Orwell, who came from the lower margins of the British gentry and had his reasons for scepticism (he could not go to Cambridge or Oxford because he could not afford it), but who praised the British upper class because in a fight, they sent their sons. Norman Birnbaum
-
It all depends on who the WH ultimately annoints
First off Senators rarely win the White House. So one would think that Romney would have a better chance. But being a Mormon has with it certain disadvantages, politically. So you should be looking at Republican governors who are far to the right and tow the party line blindly, unquestioningly. Then the machine will simply punch up that suit, put words in its mouth and off it marches. Much the way it turned empty suit crack monkey George into something 'Presidential'. Perdue? Kempthorne? Guinn? Sanford?
-
Why don't you journalists buy a clue
While modern journalism (unlike earlier versions) pays lip service to objectivity and ethical behavior, you've become a huge part of the problem. I read bias in your work everyday, conscious or not, intentional or otherwise.
You treat these political buffoons as if they're sincere people doing their jobs when they're neither. You refuse to hold their feet to the fire at the same time they're feeding you half-truths and outright lies.
From where I sit, no one is giving any credence to Hillary Clinton as a viable Democratic candidate in '08. At all. The way an article such as this one to which I'm responding reads is that she's a front runner when she is anything but. And I'm sitting to the left. Way to the left, a left you and your colleagues refuse to recognize still exists in this country anymore.
You report these stories with a subconscious spin that you seem incapable of recognizing. And I'm not even referring to mainstream hacks like Russert, et. al..
Stop it.
-
reality check
What a relief, after reading the NYT Magazine's cover story on Mark Warner yesterday (a shill piece for Hillary, at Warner's expense) to read the previous posts, which are much more realistic about her viability as a candidate. She has been described elsewhere as "Bill Clinton without the charm," and it's critical to remember how very much the unquantifiable charm (or trust) factor has to do with winning. Nominating her would truly be a gift to the Republican Party. Money isn't everything - look at Dean's loss to Kerry in Iowa. Democrats should not allow the current situation to panic them into foregone conclusions.
-
hold your fire
Guys, get with it. it is a waste of time to speculate about deomcraticn nominee 2-3-4 years ahead of the election. Repeat after me, the fornt runner(x years before the election) never gets the nomination. Walter Mondale in 84 is the only one since the Television Era began( 1960) Prior to 60, losers were renominated, see Adlai Stevenson. Put money on it, Hillary wont get the nomination.
-
It ain't Hillary Babe
As I sit in the middle of one of the reddest of the red States in Bible belt America, I can tell you Hillary will lose if she wins the Democrats nomination. In this state, our "moderate" Democrats would vote for Dubya (if he could run again) over Hillary.
Good God, I would love to see a woman as President! Hillary may be the best qualified, but the Republicans could run Pat Robertson and win against Hillary in Bible belt America. And we all know it is those electoral votes that count.
Another woman, maybe. But not Hillary.
-
The RNC would make a case for Martial Law
If Hillary ran. Seriously, they'd call for a suspension of elections and 34% of Americans would openly cheer.
The DNC has to come up with a coherent platform and an electable candidate otherwise they're just playing at the politics of victimization.
-
They SHOULD be afraid of Hillary...
They should be very, very afraid. The Republicans are bullies and cowards. Someone like Hillary in the Whitehouse would open up the vault and all their dirty little secrets would come crawling out.
Would they bring out the worst, their biggest and baddest artillary against her? You bet. Like the bully always picks on the guy who secretly makes him feel inferior, but appears to have little support.
Unlike a lot of people who say Hillary cannot win, I didn't drink the Kool-aid. Whatever the Republicans are spiking the drinking water with, causing people to buy their inverted logic, I'm immune to.
If they truly thought Hillary was a perfect candidate to lose, why is it, that as soon as a discussion begins that she might run for office, they all come down on her, bleating, creating a firestorm, attempting to discredit her anyway they can? When will people open their eyes?
They did the same thing with John Kerry, and Al Gore. I stood in a line that was as long as a block to vote in 2004 and hear me, NOT ONE PERSON IN THAT LINE was going to vote for Bush. It was like a party. Even CUBANS were fed up with him. So what happened? Electronic Voting did. Districts with exit polls predicting an overwhelming lead for the Democrats suddenly had Repugs elected -- by more votes than voters!!!!
People were bewildered and lost when Bush "won" in 2004. I passed a blond woman, crying in her cell-phone, saying "I don't know who voted for Bush..." and I called out to her in solidarity. She then said "See, honey, this lady just agreed with me."
We have seen the last of our Democracy, friend. Either vote for Hillary, or hire some friendly hackers or both. Because unless we do, no significant/pivotal election will ever be won by a Democrat again.
Something is not right.