Letters to the Editor
-
democracy is rule by the people.
these candidates, in their different ways, can only offer rule by an elected king. they aren't philosopher kings, and some times you get someone who is a genuine monster, such as george bush. he is not the first evil president, if evil is murdering foreigners in wholesale lots, his only crime is treating americans like foreigners, with his patriot act.
you must get the direction of the nation out of the hands of politicians. it's not hard, inform your representatives you want citizen initiative power, and only vote for those who are willing to put the fishing pole in the hands of the people.
-
the hands of the people
Al:
I agree. But not in the Ron Paul way (or actually I'd be fine with the Ron Paul way if it didn't include Ron Paul himself). Of the viable candidates I really the believe the candidate who comes the closest to putting the fishing pole in people's hands, is the one who is willing to fight to get it out of corporate hands who are fishing off shore as a way of not paying workers or taxes. And that candidate would be John Edwards. And I disagree with the assessment that it's all panache--Edwards has some actual domestic policies I can grasp. I don't get any of the three's foreign policies, but I'm actually more concerned with how we've fallen within. Richardson and Biden seem to have some foreign policy so I hope they become part of the Cabinet.
-
Hillary's Experience? More like familiarity...
Can anyone outline for me what makes HRC qualified to be the most powerful person in the world? Does being married to the CEO of General Electric or Ford Motors make you the best choice to succeed him/her? Does being married to an Astronaut make you the best choice for the next space mission? Does being married to the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys make you qualified to follow him? If not, then why does being married to the President, a job significantly more difficult than any of those mentioned above, make you qualified to follow him in the job? It's ridiculous. She got elected to the Senate because of his star power, and that's IT! For you antiwar dems, she got the only vote she cast that really matters WRONG! She had 8 years of access to intelligence, which is 7 years more than GW, and SHE GOT THE VOTE WRONG!!! And, the fact that she keeps sending Bill out there to her trouble spots is more proof that she's simply not up to the task. Then, she got the IRAN VOTE WRONG!!!!!! She probably is hard working, but so is the guy that cleans my pool and the woman that does my taxes and the professor that teaches my kids. Hard working is not a credential to be President ... She talks a good game but when you really look at it, Hillary Clinton is where she is because of Bill Clinton and that's an undeniable fact. She is a celebrity-candidate for a party that is too frightened to vote with their heart (Edwards or Kucinich). She will lead from a defensive position which is exactly what she’s done as a senator. She has no vision, just desire to be president. As president, you don’t create great results because you “work hard” you create great results because you inspire the nation to get behind your vision and then know how to get both sides to agree on a path. Do you really think Hillary can get the GOP to agree with her on anything? If not, she’s not what we need in 2009. We are familiar with her, but that’s not the same thing as having experience and the Clintons have said the word “experience” so many times, they’ve snowed everyone into believing it. FAMILIARITY is not the same thing as EXPERIENCE. Richardson and Biden are the experienced candidates that could win.
-
Oh, please!
Edwards...[on]what he meant by his frequent claim that he knows how "to close" in Iowa."
Yeah, and I immediately flashed on Alex Baldwin's riff in "Glengarry Glen Ross":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AXTx4PcKI
Plain, pure and simple, put the coffee down, John. Coffee is for closers. You came up short in 2004 and you are going to come up even shorter in 2008.
-
There's nothing new here...
Hillary will change with the winds; today she is the new, engaging, light-hearted Hillary who takes it all with detached amusement.
Edwards, of course, is For The People and will stand-up to those interests that are not Teachers Unions, Public Employees' Unions, special pleaders or grievance mongers.
Obama's charm makes him the man even Republicans could vote for, if they were not voting as well for ever more socialistic programs and naive foreign-policies.
As with most Leftist, they are Santa Claus politicians, promising to sell-out American interests (Kyoto/Bali), abrogate contracts for populist appeal (the mortgage crisis) and mandate impossible economies (the legislation of 'energy independence' while crippling ANWR oil, new gasoline refineries and nuke plants.) They then fall back on the tired rubric of 'greedy corporations' while ignoring the ever more powerful facts of greedy politicians and gov't bureaucrats.
-
Thanks For Doing My Thinking For Me
Well, at least Shapiro mentions Edwards. Every other pundit pushing the "conventional wisdom" BS has been trying like hell to convince me that my choice has been whittled down to Clinton or Obama. Oh boy! A third possibility! But doesn't it strike anyone out there as even slightly suspicious that the candidates who actually reflect the values and wishes of the majority of Americans are arbitrarily labeled "unelectable" and thus unworthy of equal media coverage? If either Clinton or Obama become President, here are a few things you can count on: Our troops will remain in Iraq for untold years to come. Tens of millions of Americans will continue to live without health insurance. And the corporations will still be running our country. Sure, either Clinton or Obama are preferable to whomever the Repugs nominate. (And won't it be nice to once again have a President who possesses a triple-digit I.Q.!) But I'll still be voting for the lesser of two evils. And if any candidate is polarizing enough to actually lose it for the Democrats, it's Clinton or Obama. The Republicans, the Corporations and the DLC are working and praying for a Clinton candidacy.
Or am I just being paranoid?
I do know this: If the media gave Dennis Kucinich equal exposure, he'd walk away with the nomination.