Letters to the Editor
-
Hillary and Edwards Did Great
During the debate Hillary and Edwards were standing next to each other and it really looked like they were already the presidential and vice presidential nominees. They seem to like each other and vibe off each other well. I think in the end it will be a Hillary/Edwards ticket – or maybe vice versa.
I hated Obama. I want (really want) to like him but there is no “there” there. All his answers mostly consisted of “hope” and “change” and almost nothing of substance. Kinda like Bush in a respect. Bush didn’t “know” what he was talking about really and was just going to have Cheney and Rove tell him what to do once he got elected. I don’t think Obama is quite that bad, but I also don’t think he really knows how things work and that’s why a lot of his answers seem really vague. You don’t get the impression that he really knows the mechanics involved in achieving his “vision of change” and is planning on having someone else work out the details for him.
Whereas with Hillary and Edwards I definitely walked away thinking these two know the logistics, the politics and the outright mechanics required to achieve the results their after.
Even Biden seemed to really know what he was talking about. Obama doesn’t. When my car breaks I don’t want a mechanic that “believes in a stronger, better transmission” but has no real knowledge of how to fix it. I want someone that knows how government works and knows exactly what must be done in order to get from point A to point B.
As for Dennis, nut job Gravel, Dodd and Richardson --- somebody get the hook and get them off the stage. They are wasting my time.
-
To all the calls for a third Party
To all of the people crying for a third party, that idea is ill conceived and intolerant. First of all, in a 2 party system, there is overlap in philosophies. The Democratic line does not end at the Republican front door and visa versa. There is a (large) grey area where people can and do meet and agree on some topics. It is a DEMOCRACY after all. As an American living in Europe, I see the paralysis in governments when you have a multi-party system...Italy being the case in point. Smaller factionalized parties have a narrower scope of ideas and often selfish modes of governance. For them it's my way or the highway and unfortunately for the residents of multi-party governments, it is government by coalition which means that the moment you do or say something which a party does not like, they pull out and the governmant collapses. This is truly a government of special interestes. If you wish to really have a do nothing government, form a third,fourth and fifth party. If you cannot find your philosophy in the political spectrum as broad as that in the US, then you are an extremist. If your idea of governance is to pull out and destroy because you don't get your way when you want it then you are an extremist. It's good to have passion but not petulance and unfortunately there is too much of both here these days.
-
@paul in KY
MRS. Clinton?? SEN. Obama???? What does it take to get people to refer to Senator Clinton as SENATOR CLINTON????
-
So close now!
It is so exciting to see! With a wee bit more apathy on our parts the presidential race will be pure spectacle and entertainment! It is such an exciting time for tv fans like myself. No more boring political questions at all just shtick and zingers.
-
Pandering to the Cynics
I'm starting to wonder if Scherer is a satirist currently trapped in a reporter's assignment. The angle is snide, appealing to the cynics, which after all refers to the majority of registered Democrats. i.e. since so few Dems vote in the first place, it doesn't matter who the candidates are or what they say--why not make fun of the whole thing?
It makes for a more interesting piece than usual, but I'm concerned about the direction it takes. Of course, the candidates can't lecture the electorate, and if you notice not many journalists will take the plunge either, even here in blogland. If pandering to the cynics becomes a habit, it could have unforeseen consequences, and I'm not sure the "fashion" serves the current circumstances.
What scares me about the whole deal and the polls right now is that Clinton is the frontrunnner by such a large margin it sets her up. When David Gersten is that enthusiastic it's scary. Everybody knows the 40 per cent who find HRC "divisive" is the top of an iceberg with a laughing redneck on top being whipped by Rush Limbaugh.
If the right wing hate machine combined with Democratic and liberal cowardice defeated Kerry and Gore, what do you think they are going to do to Clinton--the progressive? She's been their favorite demon for years, and now they have a lot more time and motivation to re-demonize her.
I was impressed by her "performance" too, but it is inevitable that some mistake will be made, or something said or revealed that will be seen as "insurmountable" by all the little boys and girls who take their blocks and go home when daddy or mommy aren't perfect. And that's not funny any more.
-
cynicalP
My bad on the 'Mrs. Clinton', I should have said Sen. Clinton.
You know, you didn't gig me for calling former Sen. Gravel 'Mr. Gravel'. Equal opportunity is a Democratic hallmark, remember.
-
So who did the Motown Diva act?
There's always one, you know 'church schooled' 4 note range, bellows out those trills like all get out. Oh it's not American Idol? My bad.
Didn't watch more than a minute or two. Seemed like just a gimmick with YouTube. If they thought they would pull in the under 25's with anything that ran more than 4 minutes total, they were wrong.
-
3rd party intolerant?
I don't believe we are at the advent of a third party, but third party events in U.S. history have always had an effect on the two main behemouths.
Read your U.S. history! From the Republicans in the mid 1860s, Populists in the late 1800s, the socialists during WWI, the Farmer Labor party in Minnesota, the Wallace candidacy in the 1950s, through George Wallace, Perot and Nader, third parties revitalized actual democracy.
You do believe in actual democracy, don't you? Europe is in far better shape democratically than this country. Weak government? Bring it on. What we have here is permanent dictatorial government... benign of course at this point, but becoming less so every day.
We need a large labor-based third party in this country, fighting for the needs of workers, women, minorities, gays and every other group which has been stepped on. The problem with the Democrats is that they are not accountable once in office. The party is controlled by big money. An actual, more direct democracy would be rooted in mass organizations based on work, on role, or on geography. The Democrats don't really have any mass organizations, except the trade unions, which are unable to control them. Witness NAFTA.
Intolerance is shown by those who are against any party but the two 'approved' ones. The range of political opinion in the 'public square' in this country is extremely narrow. For instance, why didn't someone suggest nationalizing the oil companies to the candidates? A question like that wouldn't even get through...