Letters to the Editor
-
@ Slackie Onassis
You wrote: "Respectfully, it'd be more convincing if you said why you thought Clinton would be better than Obama, rather than repeating Clinton's talking points: 1) brilliance, 2) experience, and 3) day one."
Perhaps it's that her so-called "talking points" ARE why I believe she is a better candidate than Barack Obama. Barack Obama is superficial where she is substantial...in my opinion.
You wrote: "Obama has plenty of gravitas and he has plenty of something Clinton's sorely lacking: charisma. You know what lets someone "operate Presidentially?" Charisma. You can't win the White House without charisma."
George W. Bush was widely considered to be the guy you'd like to have a beer with." Unfortunately, he has been a dud as a President. So much for "charisma" as a criterion.
You wrote: "And how one conducts their campaign is part of a reflection of them as a candidate, how they'd handle things as President. And Obama's roundly bested Clinton in the campaign to date -- even when he's lost contests, he's managed to gain ground, managed to keep the hope alive, draw in more people -- while the Clintons alienate swathes of voters with their tactics. She was expecting a cakewalk to the White House, and was caught completely off-guard by Obama's strength as a candidate, and when that happened, she got nasty. That says something about her qualities and judgment as a leader."
Since when has politics been less than a passionate exercise? In Texas, they say that "politics is a contact-sport". Grow up and stop whining when your candidate gets challenged on his statements, positions or lack therof. You characterize the challenges as "nastiness". I'd call it "asking the hard questions". Besides, if you think the Republicans are simply going to fold in November or play patty-cake with the Democratic candidate, you are hopelessly naive. You sound like someone in their early twenties...no disrespect intended.
You wrote: "I know you won't be convinced; few Clintonites can be convinced that Obama's the winning ticket."
I've listened intently to ALL the candidates...Democratic and Republican. I also have the life-experience that you seemingly lack. I have the experience of having voted since 1980, so, I most likely have more depth of experience than you when it comes to candidate's promises versus candidate's deliveries.
After considering all the candidates, I'm supporting Hillary Clinton because she's tough, intelligent, middle-of-the-road and...most of all...competent. Barack Obama is likeable enough; he's just not experienced enough to be President from day one.
Just my opinion...