Letters to the Editor
-
@ljwalker
ljwalker53: "I think it has something to do with tone and honesty. I think it's disingenuous of him to say this, since I suspect that the reality is not as "cozy" as that."
You are basing your judgment of disingenuity on a suspicion that's based on nothing in particular?
ljwalker53: "I don't know what their relationship is, other than colleagues in the U.S. Senate."
So you admit you don't know anything about how they get along behind the scenes, and yet you think Obama's being dishonest in saying he's friends with Clinton?
Did you see the debate in Los Angeles? Obama used the very same line, that he's friends with Clinton and intends to remain so, RIGHT IN FRONT OF CLINTON! He was sitting one foot away from her! Hillary Clinton's reaction was to smile and nod in agreement.
ljwalker53: "It just doesn't sound very honest when he plays it up like this in public."
I think the reason he's playing it up in public is to set a tone and example for his supporters, which is to be civil and fair to Clinton and NOT to be mean-spirited to her in the way that Right Wingers tend to be. There are both selfish and principled reasons for this: If Obama supporters are mean to Clinton, it will only backfire, creating more sympathy for Clinton and more reason to vote for her. But also, it happens to be the right way for people to behave! Obama is doing the right thing, AND giving people one more reason to vote for him. I don't know about you, but if Obama intends to continue to win people over by doing the right thing, then that's a person I want as president. He's had plenty of opportunities to go negative, and he's avoided the majority of them -- except in cases where the criticism was fair. What example does this set for the average American? A great one!
ljwalker53: "Does that make sense? It's the best I can do. I'm a rhetoric/English instructor (part-time) and I notice those things, probably because I'm supposed to..."
Well, ljwalker53, I have to say, I appreciate you responding to me, and I am sorry if I come across as harsh or overly strident in any of my posts. I am by nature a debatey person, but I do not intend to be an insulting person, and I apologize if anything I have said has struck you that way. I really do appreciate you responding to me. Also: I appreciate people whose work involves communications and language -- something that couldn't be more important these days.
-
@ljwalker
On 60 Minutes yesterday Clinton actually said exactly the same thing --"I was friends with Barack before this campaign, and I'll be friends with him after." Honestly - to a t. Will you begrudge her that too?
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman
I guess we don't see the same things. I WILL be a little more cognizant of when HRC supporters use derogatory language, slurs or insults to Obama and his supporters.
I hope you will do the same...
I do want to point out something here about Obama's voting record that I think is fair game: there have been at least two amendments introduced to establish a timeline for troop withdrawal and to urge the president to begin bringing troops home that Sen. Obama voted against, but HRC voted in favor of. That is significant. Obama also voted to reauthorize Patriot Act, which a lot of Obama's supporters seem unwilling to believe. Some of the posts I have seen severely criticize HRC for this, but I don't see the same kind of criticism leveled at Obama for that.
There are other voting inconsistencies that I have to wonder about. SCHIP, for example. Sen. Obama hasn't been there to vote on this important legislation, although HRC has.
Sen. Obama has publicly accused HRC of voting for the 2005 bankruptcy bill. She didn't vote on it. At the same time, Obama has voted to limit class action lawsuits against corporations, like Enron. HRC voted against this.
Sen. Obama voted YES on the 2005 Energy bill that gave $14 billion in tax 'incentives' to the oil and gas industry. HRC voted against it.
Obama's supporters accuse HRC of taking financial contributions from Wall Street firms, hedge funds, telecom, media, insurance industries. But Obama has ALSO taken funds -- in large doses -- from these industries and corporations.
HRC has been accused of not supporting the ethics bill, but she did. She has been accused of voting against campaign finance reform, but she voted in favor of it.
HRC's record is belittled. Often what I read is people who either trash her time as First Lady as "limited" experience, or they don't want to acknowledge it all. At the same time, she isn't given credit for the mountain of accomplishments and achievements prior to being FL, and prior to her stint as Arkansas's FL.
If it is true, as the saying goes, that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" then let us apply that same standard to both candidates.
Finally, each of these candidates has tremendous things going for them. Both are incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable. Each has pluses and minuses on their proposals, from health care to the housing problem, from energy to the environment. Both have positive and negative records with regard to Iraq. Neither of them is perfect. I don't see HRC as the "perfect" candidate, but I do not see Obama as perfect, either. What I wish both sides could acknowledge is the "imperfections" in their candidate and weigh that against the pluses, and/or their own values and goals. I think I have done that. I gather that you have, also.
-
@ a_ignatius
Point taken.
I didn't see "60 Minutes" so wasn't aware of that until your post.
-
@ljwalker
that was a great post. thank you.
someone else referred to our choices this year as essentially an 'embarrassment of riches.' it's kind of true, i think. i have to feel sorry for the republicans, and what they're stuck with.