Letters to the Editor
-
@Ana
I respect your opinion and your reasons for choosing Hillary.
However, I have to take issue with your characterization of Obama supporters (although I have been shocked and disappointed about the vehemence often displayed by Obama AND Hillary supporters on this board - and have tried to inject reason and respect into intelligent discussion - check my other posts).
But just as there are idiots in every group, there have been more than a few reasonable people in both camps contributing to these discussions.
While I'm sorry to hear that you wouldn't support Obama if he is the nominee, if that is your choice, so be it.
Please understand that there are many Obama supporters who have chosen to support him based on our own vales as well. The values you chose to support Hillary (experience and preparation) are valid reasons. Obama supporters may have other values that are more important to them. And they are equally valid.
Don't get me wrong, I am a registered Independent who, if forced to join a political party, would choose Libertarian. So for me to migrate into the progressive camp is...significant. But for me the important issues of this election are: getting the heck OUT of Iraq (and refocusing on Afghanistan) and reforging cooperative bridges with the the rest of the world which 'we' have since alienated.
I feel both Clinton and Obama could do a reasonable job of this BUT domestically Clinton would inspire so much resistance from Republicans because of her history and experience, I'm not sure anything would get done. A cooperative attitude and outlook starts at home. And Clinton hasn't emphasized any desire to (or demonstrated any history of) work with Republicans in any way. So for me the experience argument became a more of a detriment, a negative in many ways.
We don't have to agree about this or anything else. But please don't generalize us the way you did.
-
My Advice
To Obama after last night is to limit the hope speeches to less than a half hour. Even that arena full of his supporters was getting antsy.
-
Go Obama!
Kicking ass & taking names. Let's all come together & whip some Repub ass this Nov.
-
Some facts....
Some interesting facts and positions about Sen. Obama. This is from his record since 2005 when he first became a US senator.
(1) Energy & Enviroment:
There hasn't been much debate on or scrutiny of Senator Obama's decision and
wisdom to vote for the 2005 Energy Bill sponsored by VP Dick Cheney
(remember all those secrete meetings with energy industry and his
refusal to made relevant documents public?)
Mrs Clinton voted against the bill.
Environmental and consumer groups criticized the bill, saying it gave big subsidies to energy companies. It did not contain fuel efficiency standards or require reductions in heat-trapping gases.
In his website the Senator's rationale for it is that of ethanol
subsidies alone. But the bill was a bad one from
the environmental and "special interests" perspectives.
(2) Trade
Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare
his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress.
Quote: OBAMA: "I believe that expanding trade and breaking down barriers
between countries is good for our economy and for our security, for
American consumers and American workers."
(3) The Media
Rupert Murdoch has endorsed Obama and is using all the resources
to help Obama and destroy Hillary Clinton.
Good will? Hardly... What does Rupert Murdoch hopes to gain from an Obama presidency?
(4) And about the war... and reaching for compromise
Obama chose as his senate "mentor"
Joe Lieberman, who happily and consistently votes with the Republicans and against
the Democrats. He still is his mentor.
Sen. Obama has consistently voted to finance the war since he arrived in the Senate.
(5) Lobbyists:
Sen. Obama is indeed not accepting money from *federal* lobbysts. Rather he takes money directly from the businesses represented by them.
Moreover he *does accept*money from state lobbyists.
Here's an interesting article in Harper's magazine from 2006 : *before* Sen. Obama decided to run for president and tailor his later votes and positions.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
-
Why the "experience" argument is weak from HRC Supporters
1) Obama is older than Bill was when he ran in 1992
2) Obama has MORE time in elected office than Hillary does.
3) Obama gained his reputation on his own merits and not on the reputation of his marriage partner.
4) Comparing the ages of our recent presidents, Reagan and Bush I were the oldest. And, while not as bad as Bush II, neither were good for the nation.
5) Experience that does not lead to good decisions isn't anything to brag about. 95% of HRC and O's policy positions are the same. BUT - Hillary voted FOR the war. Clearly, the wrong decision. The most important vote in her life, and she got it wrong.
6) Many of the best presidents we have ever had were a) extremely good orators and b) relatively 'inexperienced' when they took office. Lincoln, anyone?
7) The "experience" argument isn't working, as the last ten contests have shown. Not exactly a good track record for someone who wants to get things done "from day one."
I like Hillary - really. I shook Bill's hand once we he spoke at my college graduation. I'll gladly vote for Hill if she wins the nomination. Her speech last night was strong - when she focused on her own strengths and got away from "attack" mode.
BUT - HRC supporters - examine your own motives and the "experience" argument, please. For the rest of us, it just isn't convincing.
-
Later, when it's obvious he's not the second coming,
I'll be shaking my head at all of the lazy and idiotic Democrats that lost this election for us by voting for someone they hadn't truly vetted. That's when I'm not thinking of other countries to live in when President McCain appoints John Paul Stevens' successor. Honestly - all of you Obama supporters don't even know him.
-
Squabbling
My partner and I originally supported John Edwards, then Hiliary. But if Obama wins the nomination, we'll do our darndest to ensure he wins.
It's not just about "the candidate," it's about WHO sits on the Supreme Court, it's about WHO runs OSHA, FDA, etc. Or do the die-hard Hiliary supporters or die-hard Obama supporters really want 4-8 years of John "let's bomb Iran" McCain?
No matter who wins the nomination for the Dems, they've got my vote, my financial support and my labor.
For those who cry about not showing up in november, because the other candidate is "impure?" Do you really want more of the same?