Letters to the Editor
-
@Slackie
Great points. However, I didn't think Hillary "won" anything. I have no idea why CNN slected this format but it was a bad idea to let the SAME person speak first each time. Boring.
I think the reason why Clinton hasn't been able to deflate Obama's delegate surge is that her decent performances in debates have been overshadowed by her performances in person. Negative and loud speeches do not make people want ot vote for you. How much name-calling and insults are the voters supposed to listen to without getting turned off?
-
Anon @ 2:55, I feel sorry for you
1) First, I've got to call you out on your line that we should all take a last "lingering look at the strength and tenacity of Hilary Clinton." This is the "message of the day" from the Clinton campaign, and I applaud your ability to watch Hillary's speeches (I confess I can't) and come here and repost her speechwriters' thoughts as your own.
2) You say that she is capable of prevailing with "dignity." I think that "xerox" crack was pretty undignified, and so did the audience who booed her.
3) You say that she is accomplished and ready. I'm afraid we're just going to have to disagree. She's "accomplished" the authorization of military force on Iraq and Iran, I grant you.
4) Here's where we get to the rub: You say "I am not prepared to cast my vote for the inspirational but thus far unproven Sen. Obama." Look, either we as a country are going to elect nothing but former vice presidents (or former First Ladies, I suppose now) or else we're going to have to take a chance every now and then. Obama has done a great job convincing the electorate in 26 out of 38 contests to date that he can do the job. I am sorry you require proof of something that by definition cannot be proven (no candidate can PROVE they could do the job; I'm sure if you examine your own motives you will find that you believe ol' Bill will be there to help Hillary out... third term, anyone?).
5) You say "Seven years ago another hopeful but untested candidate was elected." Hold up. Do you really think Obama is like Bush? Do you know what Obama has accomplished in his lifetime (without, I might add, being married to power as Hillary is)? No one would think he is really like Bush, so I think you are just blowing smoke. Abraham Lincoln was labeled "inexperienced" too, and oh by the way, Obama has four more years' experience in elected office.
6) And then finally, you say, "Hopes and dreams are great, but..." So you've given up? You admit that you are unable to believe that there might exist an honest and capable and, yes, inspiring politician? You are willing instead to vote for a second-best candidate who, by your OWN admission, does not inspire your "hopes and dreams"? Your loss. I pity you.
-
Inspiration, Perspiration and Natatation
When I consider which candidate to support, I want him or her to be inspiring, ready to work up a good sweat as President and not just swimming furiously IN a tide of self-made sweat.
I just am not inspired by Barack Obama. OK...he's a nice guy, loves his family and country and speaks in lofty rhetoric. My problem is one of perception, based on nearly thirty years of listening to Presidential candidates of BOTH parties. With Brack, as with most of the Republicans, there's simply no "there" there; his speeches are mostly empty...imho...and sound like cotton-candy for the ears.
To repeat the late Clara Peller, from the old TV commercial: "Where's The Beef"? Indeed, Barack; it sounds more like verbal balogna than beef.
Just my opinion...
-
Aquiver with Neediness
We have passed through almost 16 years (and more) of uninspired, hypocritical, manipulative leadership. I despised Clinton, despite some obvious accomplishments, and (the only words possible) loathed and detested Bush. My fellow Americans may not share the depth of my feelings, but certainly the vast majority would seem to fall within the general boundaries of such emotions.
Despair and disgust have set in. I forget the terms Nietzsche and Kierkegaard would use for such a state of mind, but if they ever conceived an entire people possessing such a zeitgeist, surely we are it.
The history of this zeitgeist has led our politicians to choose a set of magical phrases they repeat over and over, until any thoughtful individual begins to realize that if ever they conveyed actual meaning or proposed a course of policy that would lift us from this morass, this grounding has been lost, if not abandoned.
I still feel empty. I am still needy. I quiver. With terror and what I see developing in this country. And there is no escape.
-
@AlecsMom
Yes, I agree, which is why I put "won" in quotation marks -- it's kind of like "Yeah, you got your debate, but you're saying the same thing you always do. Congratulations!" She needed some kind of breakout performance, not more of the same. As ever, caution holds her back -- she doesn't know how to go at Obama, and even the attacks she's made haven't worked.
It's ironic to me that the "solutions over words" Clinton argument gets turned on its head, as they clamor for more debates (e.g., more words!) as the solution to her campaign woes. Debates aren't solutions; debates are words. A Pyrrhic victory, at best. There was enough of Ana's oft-cited "gravitas" in the debate yesterday, along with plenty of pathos.
Ideas matter, words matter, inspiration matters, organization matters -- unfortunately, Clinton's got ideas, but lacks the other three components, whereas Obama's got the other three aplenty. If he tacked further to the left, he'd have the market cornered on ideas, and would have decimated Clinton even sooner.
She really needs to be on the Supreme Court, where her intelligence and determination would serve her country best, and where her conservative stances would actually appear liberal, standing next to the RATS on the Supreme Court. I think that's the best place for her. The chance for her to appear strongly progressive is on the Court.