- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
1. Democratic views on the War on terror make very little sense. I think all 4 candidates indicated that they were willing to attack Al Quaeda in Pakistan's borders wihtout agreement from Pakistan. Hillary Clinton even indicated that she would use nuclear weapons against a state in response to a nuclear attack on the US by terrorists based in a state. Fair enough. But, they all next described how they want to get out of Iraq as quick as possible. Now, what is the likely outcome in Iraq if we withdraw quickly. Isn't there a reasonable probability that terrorists will take over? If Pakistan with a partially pro-US governament and military is dangerous, what would an anti-US Iraq allied with Iran and Syria be like?
2. Obama and Edwards could have easily beaten Clinton in the debate. After one of her statements of how experienced and ready she is, one of them should have finally just called her on it and said that she really doesn't have any more experience than the rest of them. The simple fact is that being the wife of a governor and being the First Lady do not count for anything. So, beyond that, she is a 1+ term Senator. Not much more than Edwards who at least can add to his resume that he actually did run for Vice President. And, when Hillary started to take credit for the change that Bill Clinton made in the 90's (one example: budget balancing), Edwards or Obama could have simply replied that the biggest change under Bill Clinton was the Republican takeover of Congress and Clinton's compromising with them on things like welfare reform.
I know there is a perception that the MSM hate Hillary but the exact opposite has been true. She was annointed as a brilliant, national leader based on no actual contributions of any kind. I think the voters subconsciously know this and the results are showing.
