Letters to the Editor
-
Hillary is just warmed over Bush in the Middle East
This article reported that maybe the anti-war Democrats will vote against Hillary. I don't consider myself part of an anti-war faction of the party. I was in favor of the military action in the Balkans for example.
But of all the bad things Bush has done Iraq is the worst. And he'd like to repeat it in Iran. Hillary too. Hillary says she'd do Iraq all over again given the same pre-war "intelligence" which the rest of the world saw through. And she's doing it all over again with Iran. "All options on the table," "would use violence against Iran," giving the green light to attack Iran to Bush on the Iran army are terrorists vote.
Hillary has positioned herself as one candidate committed to continue Bush's disasterous policy of ME warfare. I have no intention of voting for that.
-
People hate Hillary
It still amazes me that all the people supporting Hillary are blind to the fact that she is not just disliked, but rather despised and hated by a large number of people in this country, primarily Republicans and independents. If she wins the nomination, the majority of the country will probably vote against her in the general.
This is one presidential election that everyone assumes will go to the democrats. And I hope so. But it's the democrats to lose, and they've done a good job of squandering opportunities in the past.
The most electable candidate in this field is Edwards. He's good looking, smart, is somewhat more liberal than Hillary on most issues, but is against gay marriage, making him attractive to conservatives, and he's from the South.
-
Could Hillary Tank?
Right now HIllary is getting all the "press" attention because her name is Clinton. Each week I listen to an Obama "isues" speech. A few days later Hllary will make an issues statement, but unlike Obama she quoted in the press. Ironically she is usally using a line from "Obama's" speech. Obama is not getting the press, but he is on the streets door to door himslef in IA and other statees He is a tremendous grassroots oganizer.
Her press attntion could also be her downfall, when the Rrrrs start their usual 'dirty tricks' campaign.
This weekend at a party I polled some more freinds. The majority said they are voting for Obama. What I have noticed is that the majoirty of my white friends over 60, wealthy, advanced degrees, are voting for Obama, and many now getting involved again. He represents the "old time" liberlaism with new ideas.
The thing is in the past that many Democrats, out of fear, have voted to the center (Clinton) instead of supporting the liberal candidate. Bill Clinton was a great president, but are people voting for Bill or Hillary. When asking the few freinds I know who are voting for Hillary, why. It usally has someting to do with Bill.
My gretest fear is that on election day those now silent white boys who listen to Rush and O'Reilly's LIES, will put down ther beer cans or bible, get up off the sofa, pull their pants up over their cracks, and vote for anyone just to keep a "screeching" woman or "black" from office. The good news however is they will be countered by a large group of older voters, and "new" voters who are much more diverse and accepting of diversity, and hose libersl who will no longer voter the center.
-
An "Editor's Choice" letter?
I have to pick a bone with Salon for choosing this post by "Slackie Onassis" as an "Editor's Choice". Is this letter an Editor's Choice because it offers Salon some objectivity cover on pro/anti Hillary responses?
Shapiro has been called a Hillary shill in earlier op/ed's he's written. This piece is not a pro-Hillary article but apparently he cannot satisfy the true Schadenfreudians of Hillary, liberal or not. Shapiro's analysis points out many faults and vulnerabilities of Hillary's campaign, and yet Slackie writes,
I dunno, Mr. Shapiro. Some of this sounds like drumbeating for Clinton...
They go on to totally dismiss her political and activist resume, as if Obama, Edwards and the others have the bonafide credentials and more experience than her. Obama ran his only federal campaign against Alan Keyes (need I say more), and Edwards has less senate experience than newbie Clinton. Believe me, I like them both (Obama/Edwards), but this is pure wishful reasoning...
They go on with a very snarky assessment of her efforts to create universal healthcare and concluded that the only person who has created the biggest awareness and controversy over this issue and could actually do something about it, is also the least credible and the biggest sell-out.
A conclusion like this:
Seems like she rolled over and played dead on healthcare, rather than moving forward.
is more of a predisposed biased position that has obviously turned off the listening device. During a post-Reagan era with a conservative movement in full momentum, universal healthcare was met with a hostile eye. Now, with the pendulum swinging back the other way, its possible and she's not shying away from it. But, if you are a fan of unilateral policy force-feeding, such as Dubya with his social security privatization (read: no compromise, its privatize, or do nothing), then you should advocate dramatically shifting our healthcare from the status quo, to universal. Yeah, good luck with that. I see the adjustments to Hillary's 1994 healthcare as a realistic transition off this current system. I have no doubt we will move more left in this direction over time, but it won't happen overnight.
Next, by casting a wide net on Hillary's political compass, Slackie can pretty much dispute any progressive or liberal credentials she has...a pretty good tactic based on...gosh, who knows, no fact is offered here. She is a,
centrist Democrat, watching her right flank, well, given her stances, that puts her firmly in "conservative" on the spectrum -- certainly to the right of Edwards and Obama (neither of whom is left-of-center; not even close). She's a Republicrat, through and through. Hell, Ron Paul's probably to the left of her on a lot of issues!
So she's right of Edwards/Obama, right of Ron Paul, practically a conservative..., those are pretty sweeping statements with no fact behind them. I love hearing liberals claim this about Hillary while the other side is complaining about how she is a communist who hates capitalism and is too liberal for this country. Perhaps this means she really is a centrist, but reading her bio from many sources, I don't see how she is right of Ron Paul, or even her major competition.
And do we all really believe that she will invade Iran? Come on. No Democrat president will invade Iran. Does she believe in leverage alongside diplomacy? Yes. Us progressives/liberals have been complaining for years about the lack of intelligent strategies for our national interests. Yes, Kerry was correct, we should be defeating terrorism with smart policework, not military invasions. And yes, we should be using our allies influence with us as leaders in diplomacy to prevent war. Sometimes that requires additional leverage such as sanctions, which is what that non-binding Iran resolution would open doors to.
Slackie says that the biggest threat is whether she'll demoralize Democratic voters. I think the biggest threat is the continuance of a misinformation campaign, such as that post based on nothing but perception and a predisposed made-up-mind. Restoring our democratic process is extremely important, and that very much includes sifting through the distortions, the bias and the propoganda to separate fact from fiction. And no, I'm not being hypocritical here, because my mind is not made up between Hillary, Obama, Edwards or Kucinich.
The real irony is that these type of declaratory statements about Hillary can be found on the right in spades, and they have a pretty lousy record on being right about anything.