Letters to the Editor
-
Al Gore on the second ballot is what a lot of us are hoping for. It might just happen.
Oh, please.
Sorry, but I didn't vote for him. Because he wasn't on the primary ballot.
If people are worried the Super Delegates "stealing" the nomination for one candidate or another, a convention choosing a president whom *no one* has voted for sounds like grand theft.
(And I like Al Gore. But, his time to "step in" has passed).
-
Thank you
It is sincere. I know this unlike four of the major presidential candidates he wasn't born in 1945 (Bill Clinton, George W. Bush) or 1947 (Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney.) Rudy Giuliani is a huge outlier being born as early as 1944. Gasp!
I'm not a Gen-Xer either. Techncially I'm a Gen-Yer. By a lot. What I'm saying is at a certain point things reach a level where they HAVE to change. Many of us believe we're at this point.
All generations of leaders must pass eventually. Even Churchill, Truman, Thatcher, Golda Meir (all of whom weren't necessarily ready to go when they left.) Meir's my favorite by the way, the woman had nerves of steel. She once steadied Moshe Dayan one of my favorite generals.
Fortunately for the good of humanity and the world as a whole they had the sense to realize this. They understood when awesome new technologies, weapons, and advancements had evolved beyond their ability to handle. They understood when the world advanced and left them behind. They had the grace and dignity to accept this.
The Baby Boomers are a truly amazing generation which will have left its mark going all the way back to at least the early 1960s. Unfortunately they are one of the few generations who somehow does not seem to have this innate sense of when it is time to move on, out of power, and let others who are better able to respond to a changed world lead.
The world is speeding up, it always does. The 40s were different than the 30s and the 50s were different from the 40s. Winston Churchill who was an ideal leader in 1945 by 1955 was for all intensive purposes extinct politically. And this was not just because he was old. It was because the world was DIFFERENT and the skills he had grown up with no longer applied in the same way they once did. This is the point we have reached again.
This does not mean he disappeared. On the contrary he went on to win a Noble Prize for writing, painted his entire life, enjoyed frequent visits with the Queen and occassionally advised on crucial matters that undoubtedly might not have been solved without him. Because of this he was able to take his place in history and become all he was truly meant to be.
The Boomers have reached this point. The reason you see the increased resistance to them is because they simply refuse to either accept or understand this. I don't know which one. I have no doubt they mean only the best for all of us. Unfortunately their time has passed, the world is a more complicated place, and their continued insistence on maintaining complete control over the reigns of power has ever quickening and worse reprecussions for the world at large.
This is why you have a planet literally melting, genocides occuring on an unheard of scale (both of these two things date back to the first Clinton administration so they cannot be put solely on Bush's poor leadership) and an international occupation/war the likes of which America has never seen (which both of the current generation of older leaders voted for but the younger candidate was somehow able to see through) and from which America has no way to extract itself. Again please just consider this. Really ask yourself is it true. And not is Hillary Clinton just qualified to be president, but is she qualified to meet the tests of the 21st Century? More importantly do you honestly believe she is as well qualified to meet these wholly different threats as Barack Obama is?
-
Thanks, red, for the slate article, which was great.
Here it is again:
http://www.slate.com/id/2185831/pagenum/2/
-
The Texas Two Step
From deep in the heart of Texas, I see a lot of positives for November. Last night I went out to caucus for Obama and at 7PM when the polls were supposed to close there were three hundred people standing in the parking lot outside the apartment club house that was our polling place. There was no way we were going to fit into that place but it did not matter because by the time the last voter voted and the votes were counted it was 8PM. We went and found the precinct captains for the Hillary folks and organized our sign in procedure. We let the 10 Republicans have their convention in the club house and we organized our sign in for the caucus in the adjoining Laundromat. Some of the Hillary folks were apprehensive about us because we out numbered them 2 to 1 but I assured them we would count all the votes because after all we are not Republicans. By nine we ran all the folks through the line we and we had 146 for Obama and 72 for Clinton. My counter part at the sign in table and I agreed in September we would get back together and knock on every door in the precinct no matter who wins. We know if we can get all the increase the Democratic turnout by the same percentage in November we can turn a Red Texas Blue.
-
careful how you use the term "swiftboating"
HRC's campaign has *not* been "swift-boating" anyone. Certainly not Obama.
She has not made up lies that are in direct contrast to facts. "Obama is a terrorist" "Obama is a gay stripper" "Obama is a baby-eater": *these* would be swift-boat type lies. She certainly has put a negative spin on facts: Obama is too inexperienced; Obama is too connected to Rezco, etc. These are interpretations of facts, and while I don't agree with her campaign's take on it, they are not outright falsehoods.
Plenty on the *Right* have floated "Obama is a Muslim" (HRC this morning on the Today Show said this was silly); "Obama had gay sex" (that crazy guy who couldn't pass a lie detector test); "Obama is unpatriotic" (oh, please. Pass the idiotic "Freedom Fries" while I listen to *that* hypocrisy), and Obama has done a great job of shooting them down.
The truth is, *both* campaigns have voiced negatives about each other ("Hillary is a war-monger"; "Hillary attacks when she's blue"; "Hillary has no experience"). I'm not thrilled by it from either one of them. I think both of them should focus on their own qualities.
I also doubt the "going negative" really swayed public opinion one way or the other. Really. So, I don't think it's a useful tactic anyway. But these have been *mild* compared to what we're used to from the other side.
Save the S-word for those who truly deserve it.