Letters to the Editor
-
@juneausmog
If we need someone to inspire, then let's get Ryan Seacrest as president.
Uhm, is there another Ryan Seacrest out there of whom I'm not aware? Because the only Ryan Seacrest I know of in the media could hardly be described as inspiring. Did he inspire you to watch American Idol? To stay in the closet about your homosexuality? To get a fake, too-dark tan? Well, that's almost enough to make a hard-bitten cynic like me get all choked up (sniffle) (sniffle)
-
Uninformed Opinion
Disclaimer*- I have been moving and couldn't catch the debate, so all of my knowledge of it comes from this article. There may still be value in my thoughts because a lot of people will get their debate information the same way.
Based on the article, I would say that Hillary may be in trouble. Getting shrill and attacking after Iowa feeds into some of the negative perceptions of her that already exist. And her "we're looking for ... a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today and tomorrow" comment sounds like something Bush would say, which doesn't exactly make the case for change.
Obama, on the other hand, seemed to be playing from the right playbook. Rule #1 for a front runner is DON'T BLOW IT. If Obama looked "presidential" and avoided gaffes, he did his job.
Richardson may not have a chance, but showing himself as being somehow above the bickering kids was what he needed to do. And getting the best line of the debate never hurts.
Edwards just doesn't do it for me, so it is hard for me to comment on him. He let Cheney walk all over him 4 years ago and brought nothing to the ticket for Kerry. I don't like the way he seems to trot out his wife to make the remarks that anyone not dying would be criticized for. Personally, I would be concerned about having a President who put his job before his dying wife and even more concerned about one who put his dying wife before his job. It is an unpleasant topic, but it IS (tragically) relevant to the job he is seeking, even if it is something we can't talk about.
-
Most telling foreign policy moment of the Dem debate
Was when the candidates were discussing the current crisis in Pakistan, and the debate revolved around what to do with Musharraf and whether or not we should allow elections and if so, whether or not we'd be able to "control" the outcome. Not influence, not shape...CONTROL. Considering that the political system of a sovereign nation on the other side of the globe was being discussed, Clinton's choice of words at that moment was very, very telling indeed.
Richardson essentially called for the US to depose Musharraf and hold free and fair elections, saying that we had the "influence" required to get it done (none of the other candidates disputed that point.) Translation: Pakistan is a client state and Musharraf our vassal. We're the boss, and he's in our employment, and although he has served a useful purpose up to now, it's time to fire him, just like we've fired so many of our employees in the past (Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega are merely two recent examples.)
The other candidates argued that deposing Musharraf would be counterproductive and that the genie of "democracy" in Pakistan, if unleashed from its bottle, could well be detrimental to US interests, if say radical Islamists were to gain control of the country. An arguably prudent and sensible position, but one that shows that this country doesn't actually care one bit about the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We merely care about preserving our power and influence in the region, and one of the linchpins in our strategy has been the carefully-cultivated ties with Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus that we've developed over decades. These ties, and the dark activities of Pakistan's military-intelligence establishment in everything from the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan, to Kashmir, to the drug trade, to nuclear proliferation, to 9/11, to sheltering and shielding Bin Laden and al-Quaeda, to the resurgent Taliban, all deserve major coverage in the US media and a major place in the consciousness of the American voter. But, of course, no such thing will ever happen.
After the exchange over Pakistan last night, could there be any further doubt that Musharraf is our guy, and has been since he seized power in a coup in 1999? He decapitated the Pakistani democracy that we're afraid to unleash and that was pushing Pakistan in some uncomfortable and unacceptable directions in the mid-late 90s. Could there be any further doubt that Benazir Bhutto's assassination was quietly and secretly welcomed by many in Washington? Does anyone really buy the official line that Bhutto was knocked off by Islamist radicals, and not by the military or ISI at the behest of Musharraf?
There is so much that needs to be discussed about Pakistan that is ignored or glossed over by the media that it's almost depressing. There's way more going on there than meets the eye, that's for sure. But the exchange during the debate last night, if parsed intelligently, was very enlightening and revealing. I wish more Americans were paying attention to this type of stuff.
-
Change!
Of course this is a change election! What is it with the political dialogue in this country? Have we all become so simpleminded during the conservative junta that we can no longer think complex thoughts?I doubt that there are more than a few people in this country,religious nutcases,who don't want change even if they won't admit it.There are few defenders of the Bush disaster, only people who profit from it at the expense of everyone else in the country. I think that is one of many threads Obama has tapped into, people who voted for Bush twice and are now so embarrassed but unwilling to be beat up for it. They don't want to admit to being so dumb twice but they do want change.I would like for someone to please tell me how Hillary does not represent change? Why do the Republicans hate her so much, why have they spent millions demonizing both the Clintons if they don't represent change? A person can be both experienced and an agent of change at the same time they are not mutually exclusive traits.