- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Actually, that would be Hillary.
She has been selling herself based on experience. Basically selling you a "safe" candidate.
The thing is, experience didn't stop her voting for the war.
Nor did her extensive foreign policy experience prevent her from calling the leader of Russia, soulless.
Oh, and then going on about how America as a great country, should not be striving to forge personal ties with the leaders of other countries. She was in essence, slamming Bush because he is too "nice."
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=37968§ionid=3510203
I am sure that will keep you out of any more wars.
When asked about inner city unemployment as it relates to immigration, they both said things that were quite telling.
Hillary, said that she understands that illegal immigrants are stealing people's jobs.
Obama said that inner city unemployment predates the current immigration problem, and the real problems behind it need to be adressed.
Now their policies on illegal immigration are the same, save that Obama supports illegal aliens getting drivers licenses. Yet, Hillary, not Obama, Hillary the candidate of cool heads, of experience, was the one to appeal to xenophobia.
If you don't believe me, check it out.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/01/31/2008-01-31_clinton_obama_get_cordial_at_debate.html
Plus, she managed to raise what in any other campaign season would have been a record amount (The amount is second only to Obama) and run into funding problems. By Super Tuesday.
I don't want somebody that bad with managing finances managing the finances of America.
Now, you talk about Obama being the emotional candidate, the emotive choice, I wonder if that emotion, might not be the elation, of possibly finding somebody who looks halfway competent?
