Letters to the Editor
-
Bob Johnson Was A Bad Omen
The choice of this out-of-touch megalomaniac more (far more) than makes up for Obama having briefly had Donnie McClurkin singing some great gospel while harboring his own (if screwed up) views on homosexuality. Johnson is not exactly the toast of black America and hasn't been for quite some time. His decisions on how to program BET have made him a moving target for years now. But it was Hil and Bill who brought him on board, which suggests the tip of the iceberg has just breached.
As for the idiotic comments by Ms. Clinton re: LBJ vs. Dr. King: Nice Going Hillary. Without King's decade of putting himself on the line beforehand, there would never have been any act for Lyndon Johnson to sign. Stroke of a pen. Astounding! Totally eclipses the sacrifice of everything a man has, including, eventually, his life. Yep, all that experience paid off for LBJ and his ability to sign his name. It also taught him when to get the hell off the bus.
And that "fairy tale" comment by Bill -- well, that just disappoints the hell out of me. I never really placed much store by Hillary, but I did believe in Bill. Not anymore. As Russert made clear this morning, Obama's having voted to fund the so-called war was the result of Bush-Cheney's blackmailing Congress by threatening to leave our troops over there without even the bare necessities -- and having proved it by sending them in with defective and minimal personal armor and other important items. Wouldn't you?
Then HRC tells Russert Obama has "disorted" the Clintons' remarks. He did? I didn't hear a word until this morning it was reported he actually said the Clinton campaign had gone negative. Strong stuff. Quit picking on the poor girl!
The Russert interview was especially enlightening because it once again illustrated how unwilling Hillary is to ever answer a question directly, if at all. When asked three times by Russert if she felt Obama was qualified to serve as President, she diverted the question by saying "That's up to the voters to decide." So let me get this straight: the voters decide what Hillary thinks? That actually makes sense, and Russert went easy on her by not pointing it out!
The sense one gets from both Clintons (and I have been a constant admirer of Bill Clinton up til now, so this is painful for me) is that they really do feel they are America's Royal Family and don't call them on anything or Bill will follow Hil's harping by opening a can of whoop-ass on you.
Obama's restraint continues to inspire and amaze me. Probably not a good idea to push him too hard. There's stuff the Clinton's were doing back in the day that is not exactly sealed in a lead vault. Obama's only touched on the germane stuff so far. If nothing's off limits then the gloves could come off.
This could get really interesting.
-
The clintons will leave the Democratic party in ruins
"the Democratic Party is in danger of losing the Democratic Party is in danger of losing the current generation of younger black voters black voters"
They're in very real danger of losing ALL the current generation of younger voters. The clintons are playing to win the nomination in the ugliest way possible. She'll be nominated alright, but she'll be defeated in a rout come November...and lose the Senate as well. This is just a hint of what a Hillary Clinton adminstration will be like.
-
The Klintons do Rove
billary and bill are running a republikan style campaign. It differs not at all from what Rover and Georgie did to McCain in S. Carolina in 2000. She alone is capable of losing this election, and, as McCain gains strength, the plausibility of that loss grows. Billary alone can ignite the wacko cracker base of the republikans and get that solid 30% base out, guaranteed. Independents will go to McCain, if he's nominated. It is entirely possible that the circular firing squad that is the Democratic Party can come up with another way to lose an election they cannot lose. Nominate Clinton and we're well on our way to at least another four years of a fascist white house.
-
Enough of the ruling class
On paper, I should be a Hillary supporter, but I'm with Obama.
I'm sure Hillary would be a decent president, and I admire her plenty and appreciate all she's done in her life, etcetera, etcetera. But with all due respect, we really need to shake things up in this country, and Hillary is just not the shaker-up agent.
For one thing, it's not the 1990s anymore.
For another, I'm not sure I can put up with this Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton whiplash that may be coming our way.
But more importantly, we need to broaden our ideas about leadership.
Over time, it seems like we choose our political leaders from a very narrow group -- those from politically connected families (dynasties, if you will) who are also connected to the necessary campaign money and have been groomed, maybe since birth, to be leaders. On the left or the right, they're the valedictorian/student council president types who, of course, went to Yale or Harvard or some such college. And they climbed the political ladder the expected way.
Can we, for once, look for someone other than one of the usual suspects?
I know people talk a lot about "experience," but there's more to experience than serving in certain, specific elected or appointed positions. Does a veteran police officer, state trooper or firefighter/EMT not have valuable experience that might be lent to government leadership? How about a successful public-school principal? Or even a parent of foster and/or disabled children? Over time, there have been plenty of great leaders who didn't rise to power through the usual "ruling class" way. If I'm not mistaken, Vaclav Havel, for one, didn't have much of an official government career before becoming prime minister of the Czech Republic.
One of the things I like about Obama, actually, is that he's had some scrapes with life's difficulties and he hasn't always been Mr. Perfect (yes, I'm referring to his admitted coke episodes, to which I'm sure most Americans say, "so what.") I just think he's in a better place than Hillary -- though I respect her and am generally with her on the issues, at least all the domestic issues -- to understand what it's like to be in somebody else's skin.
I realize that it's hard for normal people to run for office. It's hideously expensive, and the campaign process is absolutely brutal. Who'd want to have their lives put under such microscopes?
In this election, however, it seems to me that Obama, for all his extraordinary characteristics, is the most "normal" of the candidates.