Letters to the Editor
-
I wanted to add that I look forward to Barack Obama directly responding to any and all lies, distortions, etc. -- directly, in a timely fashion...
Actually doing that -- beyond just saying he's GOING to do that -- could restore my respect for him. Obama responding directly, specifically would improve the tone of this horserace considerably.
Oh, and he may disapprove of Bill Clinton's role in the campaign -- but he doesn't get to make the rules.
IMHO, Bill Clinton needs to turn down the volume and pick his fights and, yes, I think he could turn into a "negative" for the Clinton campaign. I remember the disaster the "two-fer" promise was. I remember how predictable the outrage was (and should have been) ... but I don't make the rules either.
-
@ SHCHartley
All due respect, but... people being discouraged from even attending the caucus if they don't caucus for their union's candidate of choice? On a systematic level?
I'd say we don't need Salon's help to paint a pretty depressing picture of the race so far. They could have reported this story with flowers and smiles and hearts and it would still be depressing.
-
Politics as usual vs. rhetoric and inspiration
Whatever you think of Reagan's politics, it is an undeniable fact that he was a charismatic and inspiring leader, not just for Americans, but to people around the world. As many times as the Republican candidates mouth his name, none of them can hold a candle to him in this regard. It was through the force of personality that Kennedy helped to put a man on the moon and Reagan helped to hasten the dissolution of the Soviet Union, through their ability to inspire, to set an agenda a majority can believe in, to motivate people and move a nation toward greater possibilities. It was the same talent and ability that gave Martin Luther King, Jr. his power and inspired a nation to make difficult changes. As much as rhetoric is denigrated, that is its undeniable power. It can bring people together and move people in pursuit of the good, the true, the just cause. That is, above all, what any president ought to be able to do. A good politician must be, therefore, a powerful rhetorician, an inspirational speaker and a person with the integrity to back his words. Barack Obama is that person and he could do for Democrats what Reagan did for the Republican party.
On the other hand, a politican who is uninspirational and divisive can at best only be a good manager, a good bureaucrat. I have little doubt Hillary Clinton would make a good bureaucrat. But what she can't do is exactly what we need done right now, after 8 years of Bush.
-
Hillary, the perpetual victim.
Reviewing Hillary's methodical playing of the "Race card", and the "Poor Me the Victim", against Obama, and her recent commentary on Iraq; Pakistan; Energy Policy; Illegal Immigration; Taxes; Infanticide; Massive new Government spending; Socialized medicine; and, the Clinton's history of emasculating the military, verifies that this grievously flawed woman would be the female version of the Jimmy Carter debacle that gave us the Ayatollah Khomeini who ushered in rampant Islamic radicalism; block-long lines at our gasoline stations; a severely hollow military; and, a record Misery Index. Only much worse. Considering all of her recent gaffes, e.g. "I voted FOR IT (referring to the Bankruptcy Bill); but, I was glad to see that it didn't pass.", one has to wonder if excessive use of Botox has affected her mental stability. It's no wonder that her campaign staff is shielding her from reporter and audience unscripted questions. Greg Neubeck
-
Here's your problem
I HATE George W. Bush. HATE HIM. I voted for WJ Clinton twice, but was disappointed by him (not sure how that matters, but it is a fact).
As I sit here today, I can not imagine the circumstances that would cause me to vote for Hillary. Can't do it. I would take it so far as to say that if GWB and HRC were contesting a runoff election tomorrow -- I would stay home.
-
Why...
... is it that Clinton's campaign is pitting Boomer women against their sons and daughters?
-
Jabari
Both my Boomer mother and I are planning on voting for Clinton.
Get a grip: Stop making generalizations.
-
P.S.
Why is the Obama campaign pitting young voters against their parents?
See, it sounds just as stupid when you say it the other way.
Why is the presidential campaign pitting American voters against other American voters?
WHY DO WE HAVE TO CHOOSE AND MAKE DECISIONS? WE CAN'T WE ALL JUST THINK THE SAME ALL THE TIME AND BE UNITED UNDER ONE GREAT DECIDER?
Yeah it sounds pretty stupid that way, too.
-
And, another musing...
Like many, I've decided that I will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances because of her and husband's negative behavior. I simply cannot reward the smear-filled negativity that her campaign has flung, and I, for one, will ne happy to shout, "No!" should she manage to be the nominee. Feel free to disbeleive if you want to, but do so at your own peril.
But, what must the party be thinking about all of this? Is the promise of having a female candidate (not president; she won't win) of such overriding importance that superdelegates will be willing to wreck the party for it? We already know that the Clintons will do whatever it takes to serve their egos, their ambition. But, is the party willing to throw an election just because Hillary feels entitled to be the nominee?
-
The idea that Clinton is more competent
is not borne out by her record in the Senate. What quality legislation did she work toward passing--other than SCHIP? What Bush-directed legislation did she really resist or "put up a fight" against?
Obama has admitted that he tries to talk with the other side and so has been condemned by some progressives who think that working with the Republicans will make him weak or incompetent.
However, Obama already has a record in the Senate for passing quality legislation. He isn't just a dreamer. His Quality Senate legislation include a bill that would have had combat troops home by April 2008 (the Iraq De-Escalation Bill). He sponsored legislation to bring humanitarian relief to the Congo (Bush signed it). He co-sponsored a quality ethics reform bill. (Clinton had two more years in the Senate and yet has not co-sponsored anything like this bill). He co-sponsored a bill to require the government to publish all tax spending on a database that the public can access on the internet. A quality piece of legislation. He has also worked on a bill co-sponsored with John McCain to reduce greenhouse emissions by 2/3 by the year 2050. A quality bill.
The idea that we can EITHER have a competent leader OR someone who inspires us is a false dilemna--a myth. The fact is that the nation needs both competence and the inspiration to build concensus toward getting the work done.
The fact is that based on her Senate record, as well as her husband's term in office, Clinton is more adept at playing political games and having standoffs with perceived enemies than passing legislation or building consensus. Her record does not show the competence that Obama's does--and she does not inspire those who disagree with her to go along with her anyway because they trust her.
She may be a lovely human being, but she is not the best option out there to become the next president. Both Obama and McCain have stronger records on the competence question and the inspiration issue than she does--this far in her political career.