Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
Read other letters about this article
Barack Obama's nouvelle vague
We know he's a "hope monger," but the rest of Obama's unconventional message is elusive.
By Walter Shapiro [2008-01-01]

  • Men with scythes

    I'm reading through these critiques which are mostly critiques based on media messages and I propose that in this forum we debate the merits of each campaign based on message...

    I'm sorry that this is my third time posting these three websites but here they are once more:

    Obama on the issues:

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

    Clinton on the issues:

    http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/

    Edwards on the issues:

    http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

    so what are the merits and non-merits? I'm sick of talking spectres. Men with scythes.

    Even if American voters in general are judged by many to be too stupid to read the real campaign issues, what do people who are web savvy and educated think? Are there substantive campaign differences?

    I thought that Shapiro's comment about Obama and Target were a cheap shot. The savvy left shooting down the not-quite savvy enough left. Like Clinton rebuking Obama for saying things that shouldn't be said (like that he would never use nuclear weapons to fight Al-Qaeda-- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20093852/) even though Obama was telling the truth. Nuclear weapons are off the table and Clinton agreed but she didn't think it was proper to be so honest in a debate.

    Obama's the kind of guy who said he and his wife shop at Target because they really do shop there. He didn't say Walmart because he doesn't shop at Walmart.

    But this is so many bogeymen fighting so many bogeymen. I have read through the three sites campaign issues for the party I most closely stand behind and I detect a difference in Obama's message and his delivery. I think Edwards and Obama are both reformers, but Obama is more honest in presenting both his voting record (where is Edwards senate record to back up his populist message?) and standing behind the speeches he makes. This is where it's coming down for me.

    Thoughts? Anyone? And I think Obama has the best shot at the general election. Whatever rock star qualities he has, I think the people with reformer agendas ought to take advantage of something that stands a chance of getting him IN. We need to win. Or put it this way, I think we (meaning those who have been so unhappy over the past eight years that we want to cry when we think about the needless deaths, the escalating health care costs and the one third already melted northern ice cap) cannot afford to lose this election.

    If all three have similar messages then we should vote for the person who is the most genuine and the most truthful. That's why Obama has my vote.

    And someone else said this, but they have a valid point: if Obama is not elected I do not believe he will accept the nomination for vice president. I do believe that he will vote left of center....left of Hillary's record and left of Edwards record (as he already has) and he will quickly be considered "too liberal" for the next election cycles (s). The GOP will have four or eight years on him that it already has had on Hillary to grind him into liberal mincemeat and to motivate their money-collecting machines.

    Clearly his lack of "record" works in his favor in a general election because he is far more of a liberal's liberal by his current voting record than Edwards is. And clearly more liberal than Hillary or Bill has ever been. Legislatively.

    So what is everyone really arguing about here?

    -- doloresflower
    [Read doloresflower's other letters]
    Tuesday, January 1, 2008 01:20 PM
Read other letters about this article

Letters Help