Letters to the Editor
-
.
Though I'm not sure we needed two articles on Hillary in the same day, one of them composed mainly of quotes from the other, I found the interview somewhat interesting.
It seems that Hillary still values political expediency more than straightforwardness. I really get a headache seeing her sidestep around questions like a consummate politician, and then hear everyone credit her for her "experience", as if that kind of behavior is to be lauded.
Haven't Americans had enough -- after seven-years under a fool who seems to think his own infallibility ranks somewhere above the Pope's -- of Presidential candidates who can't just admit they made a mistake? Do we really need another administration in the White House for whom PR and politics come before policy?
I feel we do not.
Which is why I will be voting for Obama, if the field remains as it stands now. (Though I'd really love a Gore/Obama ticket!)
-
Your Subhead gave me pause
Mr. Shapiro, I always enjoy your articles. I find them thoughtful and infused with gentility and kindness. An unusual style from a journalist. I enjoyed this article as well, though I am not a supporter of Hillary (I think she is called by her first name more as a way of identifying her separate from President Clinton).
I also want to tell you how much my family, friends, et al who are supporters of John Edwards appreciate your attention to him. We are convinced that the handful of conservative mega-corporations that control the media today in America have deliberately ignored him and made the horserace between Hillary and Obama so that one of them would be the nominee.
They know that Edwards is the most electable, and they are thus undermining his candidacy by their manipulations. You have been fair. They have not. Your subhead referencing "if Hillary Clinton is not elected..." underscored the paucity of polling relating to the General Election and matching up ALL the Democrats (not just Hillary and Obama) with the Republicans which makes us angry indeed. Because the polls that have done this have produced a completely different picture than those not including Edwards, or polls taken with registered Democrats only -- excluding Independents (that now about equal Democrats nationally) and Republicans(many of whom are beginning to think Democratic again).
For example the current Rassmussen Poll shows John Edwards defeating ALL the Republican candidates in a General Election matchup. But voters don't hear about that. All they hear is that Edwards is running third among registered Democrats for the nomination, period. In that way, the campaign is being controlled so that Hillary or Obama will win the nomination, because it certainly appears those two will be more easily defeated than Edwards. Maybe you could address this oversight. Democrats, including Steven Spielberg and other such major contributors, need to know who, at least for now, provides the best hope for a Democrat to be elected to the White House in 2008. Otherwise, I fear we may well all go off the cliff together and find ourselves with another Republican in the White House.
-
Re: Unelectable....To: Happy Friend
Here's the thing Happy Friend, Democrats read polls about the fight instead of putting dukes up. That's why they lost the past elections and that's why they will continue to lose unless they jump on a bandwagon with a strong candidate and ride the hell out of this election.
Its like the Dems think that they will get points for likability and inspirations. And not to say that normally this isn't true, but on the real, I speak for many folks who want a fighter in office, not a friend.
There are folks who like Brownie, but does that mean that he wasn't incompentent? Yeah, many of us would like to hire a friend to build our deck because its their hobby, but would you trust your 2 year old on that same deck when the friend, despite all the big talk, has little experience and few tools? No!
It may be hard to go against your nature, but would you rather have the nerd or the most popular guy in school handling your business?
And on Hillary's vote for the Iraq war, YALLS A BUNCH OF B*TCHES! You act like 1. she was solely responsible for this war, and 2. like we all weren't duped into believing that going to war wasn't the best decision. Hindsight is 20/20, and it cracks me up that everyone wants to blame Hillary for something that the Republicans forced down the throats of America, not just the Dem. party.
Personally, I think that the whole "Hillary Voted for the War" is a Republican strategy to shift the focus that yet again Democrats are falling for. Again, I say YALLS A BUNCH OF B*TCHES! Grow the hell up! Stop letting the Republicans lead you by the nose or make you look right by saying they support the left!
How about Democrats finally do what Republicans have been doing forever: Grow some balls, pick a candidate, then fight dirty, hard, and long! Kerry lost because he was too much of a gentleman (How do you let a draft dodger out soldier a Vet?!). Gore lost because he was too busy kissing his wife to take Bush seriously. He let the Republicans choose the issues and spent more time on the defensive than the offensive.
Democrats don't want to be offensive and its hurting us all.
Happy Friend, the reason Dems are scared of Hillary is because she is the focal point of much of the hate and fear and anger that Republicans can have Democratic candidates. And as we all know, Democrats are a bunch of p*ssies, so instead of standing behind her and doing a slow clap (a la any John Hughes 80s film), you have a bunch of Dems who are looking for reasons to discredit her before anyone has to put gloves on.
Happy Friend, instead of working WITH the Democrats this time around, WORK ON THEM! Make the gentile old rich men and women do more for all the money and power that we imbue them with. Otherwise, it doesn't matter whether you pick Friendly Obama or Cold Clinton.
The Dems will still lose.
(Conspiracy Theory: Dems lose on purpose)