Letters to the Editor
-
Okay, Now I am gone
I stuck around to make some responses that weren't needed, but now I am really leaving. Not that it matters. But like I said, I am drinking, and any move at all feels so much more momentous than it really is.
Anyhoo...
I vow that I will be back here tomorrow night, no matter what happens.
If Hillary picks up both Ohio and Texas, I will be back to grudgingly admit her campaign continues.
If she loses either of those above, I will be back demanding that she step aside, and to proclaim her campaign over.
If she loses both of those, then I will be back looking for a cute girl in the metro Boston area with a soft spot for Patrick McGoohan and Kubrick films, because there will be so many people saying her campaign is over my voice won't matter.
-
#6
While we're talking about our would be day one fearless leader, I just read that Hillary was speaking to a crowd in south Austin and declared that we (the U.S.) have given the Iraqi people their freedom. She votes to invade, backs off and goes against the war, and then here she is back to justifying her green light go ahead for the masterpiece mess we've made in Mesopotamia. Some would call her many faceted, but I think it just cuts more to the quick when one notices that she has many faces, and speaking for myself, I don't like any of 'em.
-
Both are compasionate and strong democratic canidates...
We all have our intuition. If you have doubts state them. Most people are really going on some gut instinct. I mean come on they voted the same 95% of the time?
They have different styles but they generally agree. We are trying to find the better of two excellent canidates. Try and remember that when we look at the negatives of the other side.
Read their books. Check out their web pages. Ask yourself if you are really sure that your canidate is that much better?
I mean a female president could be the most powerful change we have had in a long time. An inpirational president could lead to a new democratic coalition.
These two things are both beautiful. My heart leans too Obama because when he talks about details I follow his thought process. I see that he doesn't have a canned answer but a inquisitive analysis. I see it in his book from when he finished law school to his early policy statements in the campaing.
I am sad that it has come to this muck racking and storying telling on both sides.
As far as the NAFTA things goes he clearly didn't lie. He clearly didn't know that it happened. Otherwise he wouldn't have denied it but stated that it was unappropriate if it did happened. This is silly.
Now Resko, public fianancing there still may be problems. But Clinton has as much baggage. I have trouble believing there was nothing to hide in those tax returns. I have trouble with the volume of money Bill has take to give speeches with a wife as a sitting Senator and Pres. Canidate.
As far as the press goes the new guy gets off easy... Bill did very well with the press at first...
-
Clinton's closet...
...is a whole other area.
-
@xophere
-----I mean a female president could be the most powerful change we have had in a long time. An inpirational president could lead to a new democratic coalition------
There are four women heads of state who came to power, only because they were daughters or widows of powerful men holding the same office. Indira Gandhi of India, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Bandarnaika of Sri Lanka and Corizan Aquino of the Phillipines. None of these women would have had a donkey's chance in hell if they had somehow managed to come to power in their own steam. And such is the case with Hillary Clinton. Dynastic power it seems is now taking a stronghold in American Presidential politics. George W Bush and if Hillary Clinton will give us a total of 28 years of dynastic rule.
-
Furthermore
none of these women made any lasting change or any improvements in the lives of people in terms of healthcare, education and housing.
So I suppose we women will reach equality in the famous words of the great Bella Abzug
"Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel."
-
Okay, one more, manos99
I really feel like going off and fooling around on things far less important than this. But ya pull me back in mano...
Hillary Clinton's vote on Iraq: She likes to claim that she did not know her vote was for war, it was a vote for the authorisation of military force.
Well, I, like everyone else here I assume, was alive at that time nary five years ago. And I think I am safe in proclaiming that if Hillary Clinton thought that was not a vote for war, she might very well have been the only person in the entire country who thought so. I knew it was a vote for war no matter what they called it. Everyone else I know thought it was a vote for war too.
So why can't she admit her vote was a mistake? There are only two reasons I can think of.
One, she is unwilling to admit she made a mistake because that would make her look weak somehow, and a woman candidate cannot afford even one pundit accusing her of weakness, even if it means she is stupid otherwise.
Or two, and this is even worse, Clinton actually believes in the concept of pre-emptive attack. She believes it wasn't the notion of going into Iraq that was wrong, just how we conquered, killed, occupied, and subjugated the Iraqis that didn't follow the right game plan. So she will not admit the vote was a mistake in case she wants to to do the very same thing elsewhere.
I really want someone somewhere in the MSM to just ask Sen. Clinton if is against the very concept of Pre emptive war, just so we can clear this up.