Letters to the Editor
-
@ AKA
You know - I think there are extremists on both sides of the support line - it's been amazing & a bit scary to watch that in here. But then, I think emotions are strong after 7 years of GW ... hopefully we can get past it all after one of them is nominated. I do think that the dems are truly their own worst enemies at times, but that's kind of the nature of the beast as I think that the dems, IN GENERAL, tend to attract folks with less of a herd mentality (HUGE genealization, but ...).
And, in terms of the "electability" factor. You know - I just don't think it's predictable honestly. I don't really like to play that game because it's just going to twist you up in knots & there is no telling. And playing that game also lets other people influence my decision rather than me going with the candidate that I think is best. Don't get me wrong - I have never voted for Nadar. But out of two candidates, both who face, shall we say, challenges from an electorate that put GW into office twice, I don't their either is a shoe in. So, I just generally don't go there.
Anyway - have to run now. Happy reading! I hope your google searches come up empty :)
Peace.
I think they both come with negativesIcome from a pretty blue collar family
-
grrrr ...
last sentence ... I was going to tell you that I come from a pretty blue color family .... a lot of pretty hard core repubs, some going for Obama .... but decided go go with the "you just can't predict" theme :) Tired.
-
The only state that Hillary Clinton can win now is the State of Denial.
Her new campaign slogan:
Hoping Against Hope.
-
Hard to say...
JL, didn't you think that Obama's move on the matter was meant to show Hillary's hypocrisy and end the issue once and for all?
I think Obama's been walking a tightrope all along with his intent to run a clean campaign and also show himself to be tough enough in the rough and tumble of politics to be a viable candidate. From my reading about and of the man, I think his personal inclination is one of nonconfrontation. This personality style is often mistaken as lacking passion and committment by those of us "born to argue" and mix it up. I think Hillary is such a one, as are many of us who participate in discussions like this, but look who's winning this campaign?
I think Obama's smart enough to know that the way you end this kind of interplay is to simply no longer play. But he needs to worry about perception, so when does he play and when does he walk away? I think he was really stung with this plagiarism charge. This was his first semi-serious misstep, after all. And I think he's been a bit more on the defensive than he needed to be. "Hypocrisy" or not, he should have just walked away from it all this time, imo.
Hillary and her campaign minions are not the "enemy" -- it's "politics as usual". If he wants to change things, he really has to live the Gandhi "be the change" quote. Which means he has to resist the media and any other forces that attempt to mire him in the status quo.
-
Puh-lease
We are a flash over substance country, so it's really no surprise that someone's ability to articulate thorough policy positions is so quick to be discounted in favor of someone's ability to rouse a crowd. How utterly depressing that David Gergen observed after Thursday's debate that Hillary should change her message, because experience is a "leaden approach" that doesn't "get anybody excited." We're not talking about running for student body president. We're talking about running to be the President of the United States -- arguably the most difficult job in the world. Experience and qualifications should be the centerpiece of everyone's decision in who would be the best commander in chief. I have nothing personal against Obama. I respect him very much, and he has been an effective public servant -- clearly. But this Obamamania is utterly baffling. People are bandying about expressions like 'Yes We Can' and 'Change we can Believe In' as though they're the most profound sentiments ever uttered on a campaign trail. The expressions are being called Obama's 'mantras' because that's precisely what they are -- short, pithy sayings that are full of air. You know what would be the most refreshing 'change?' If people stopped voting based on whom they'd rather have a beer with, and voted instead for the candidate who's the most substantively prepared to do the job. I hope the people of Texas and Ohio bring Hillary two strong victories on March 4th.
-
sbeeee, congratulations
You just insulted more than 50% of the people who have voted in this year's Democratic primary. Well done.
How many Obama supporters have you met and spoken to personally? Do they seem like a bunch of 14-year-olds in 1964 screaming for the Beatles, or are they, in fact, just as able to articulate their reasons for supporting Obama as your average Hillary supporter is able to articulate her reasons for supporting Hillary?
You know what, forget it. In my experience, anyone who has bought that whole "cult" meme is beyond redemption (by the way, you DO realize that the Hillary campaign pushed that "cult" story in the national media? Good. Just checking). So in closing I will simply point out that Obama has won the last 11 contests by an average margin of 33%. He's beaten her by an AVERAGE of 2 to 1 in the last 11 contests. So I guess I can afford to be a little magnanimous when I invite you cordially to go suck an egg.
-
@ sbeee70
I may be buzzing from Obama's seductive mantra, but I base my support of his run, in spite of "experience," on the simple fact that he is obviously the better executive. Compared to Clinton, he is light year's more effective at organizing, surrounding himself with effective counsel, strategy, et al. Ms. Clinton has been woefully unprepared since "Super Tuesday," managed her finances so badly that she has had to loan her campaign money, has fired and fired again advisors and support staff (bringing in attack dogs from her old days in the 90's--talk about "change") and has been a miserable flop. If one can postulate that running a political campaign is a microcosm of one's skill as an executive (executive branch anyone?) than God help us if she ever becomes president. She had every advantage at the beginning of the race (not unlike Bush following 9/11) and has, through absolute incompetence, run it into the ground. Given her obvious lack of skill to work with others, heed good advice at the expense of following bad and refusing to seek useful but perhaps unlikely allies (echoing her attempt at healthcare reform early in her husband's administration) Hillary Clinton is a joke and a well-known drag. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has proven to be her better in every way--but then again, I've been under Mr. Obama's dreamy spell. He has such a nice smile.