- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I think "safe" was what the Clinton campaign didn't need to be; she needed to be bold and decisive, when instead she was cautious and calculating. Her iron determination might make "security voters" feel safe, but it's been done before and better by the Bush League -- look where unflappable, unshakable determination in one's own rightness has gotten us. Have people learned nothing since 2000? Maybe the immovable object of Clinton will somehow stand fast against the irresistible force of Obama, but it seems to mark a continuation of the approach of Bush (e.g., "we know best, and we're not changing based on the evidence"), rather than a departure from it.
