Letters to the Editor
-
Hillary
Re: "It's like she took off the mask of invincibility and now we see the real Hillary. And naked ambition is not a pretty sight."
And that's a woman's duty, right? To be pretty.
Hillary stood up for herself last night and dismantled her opponent's record. That's the kind of President I want: intelligent, sharp, prepared and unafraid. She had to take on Obama because the media won't examine his record, or any of his campaign's negative comments about her. His staff have called her the Senator from Punjab, said she was partly to blame for the death of Bhutto, and in a Nevada Spanish language ad called her "sin verguenza," which literally translates as shameless, but when applied to a woman has a very unsavory connotation.
And last night she brought up the secret deal Dubya is trying to negotiate that would continue the war even after he leaves office. She is on top of things and that's why the GOP is afraid of her.
-
@ Anonymous 12pm
You said: I know that you like the way Clinton presents her ideas to the public, but does it bother you that she has not written/cosponsored or led any significant bills to being passed? Other than possibly SCHIP which Obama also sponsored.
No, that does not bother me. Neither does it bother me that Obama has not accomplished much either. Nor does it bother me that Edwards didn't either. These are all liberal Democrats. I am a liberal Democrat. Until fall of 2006, both housees of Congress have been locked down be conservative Republicans. I am not going hold a lack of easy productivity against any of these people.
Yes, I do like the way Clinton presents her ideas to the public in debate particulary. She is clearly the better debater. I like John Edwards specificity on his website and the fact that he is focusing on poverty and the economic losses of the middle class. I like Obama's speeches, but I think his debating skills are weak. In a format that is more like a real debate, such as the final debates sponsored by The League of Women Voters in the final months of the general election, Obama would be a a real disadvantage. These media circuses we have now are not debates. However, I would be happy to vote for any of these folks.
Also, does it worry you that Clinton clearly is less popular with independent voters, and that the democratic base alone was unable to elect: John Kerry or Al Gore. Maybe a different kind of candidate--and one with a stronger record of passing bills in the Congress--could act on the same good ideas--but to also put them into action?
Actually, not so much this year. It was a different time then and the issues were different. I think the voters are going to be extremely focused upon the economy, the war (getting out), and national security, in that order. This year, it is the Democrats to lose. Also, if McCain is the nominee, his age may be an issue. Without Paul (pulling 4-9%), where will the anti-war youth vote go? They won't go to McCain who wants to stay in Iraq 100 years. There is an extensive New York Times poll that says that Hillary's negatives have been steadily declining. Voters (not necessarily political junkies like we are) look at her more favorably now. I think she can win with Bill Richardson on the ticket.
People are pretty open when they dislike Hillary. I am much more worried about covert racism that doesn't show up in the polls, but which will reveal itself in the voting booth. If we don't have a candidate that can carry the South, we need Texas and California. Texas may be hard to come by. California is an absolute must. I live in Texas, my dear. Bubba lives next door.
The Messianic complex aside--I can't stop thinking that Obama is the more qualified (according to his senate record), the more popular with independent voters, and therefore the best option currently on the block?
I would say that Obama is more mentally healthy, if that is any endorsement. Actually, more mentally healthy people are probably less likely to seek such lofty office or to have the fire in the belly to win. Just a bit of amateur psychologizing based upon me having known many people with issues let us say: Hillary is NOT a Narcissist. Bill is the Narcissist. There is rarely room for two Narcissists in one family. Hillary is just extremely ambitious (yes, sometimes angry, but women, too, are allowed to get angry) and determined to beat the Republicans. I believe she would be willing to die trying. I have never seen a candidate with a greater fire to win. Edwards, too, has something to prove. He sucked in his debate with Cheney. I think it haunts him. He will never, never give it up again. He also has a dying wife. He will continue to run as long as he can and not disappoint her. If we have a brokered convention (not too likely), he will negotiate for a place at the table. What I like about this man is that he has had a come to Jesus moment about not selling out and he will continue until the last dog dies.
I love Obama. I love his charisma. I love his speaking ability -- although he does try to channel King too much -- but I think he is out of his element. The question becomes can he learn enough between now and November to excel at debate. Those final debates are enormously important. People who are not paying attention now will be paying attention then.
By the way. In looking over the debates, I did not intend to quote Clinton alone. There is meat in those debates from all the candidates but, as usual, Shapiro prefers to focus on the horse race. I actually tried to post a letter about how Edwards was practically cut out of the debate, but Salon was working on its letters page and wouldn't let me.
After I wash my hair, darling, I will be back with what I hope are substantive and debatable comments. Would anyone else care to look at the issues and not the glamour and fireworks?