Letters to the Editor
-
krisellyn
This isn't or shouldn't be a popularity contest. I agree.
But when you vote keep in mind that the US is spending $12 billion per month on a war that we are only "winning" by virtue of keeping the death tolls lower than they were a few months ago, I find it difficult to understand how you think the person who has promised to continue this war indefinitely is the right choice for our nation.
If you don't like Obama personally, fine. But he did teach Constitutional law at the University of Chicago and he has been a Democratically elected senator for ten years, in the Illinois Senate and in the US Senate. And he has the same level of advisors (many of them who used to work for Bill Clinton) and many of the same policy ideas of Senator Clinton.
So voting for McCain may help you to feel vindicated personally for your feelings about Obama verses Clinton, but you will have to explain how a vote for McCain is benefitting the country you are claiming is so important to you. Temperamentally, I sometimes do think that Obama is arrogant (not unlike most politicians, I have to say), but he is also level-headed and I believe he will get our country out of Iraq and seek to avoid the mindset that mired us in that conflict to begin with.
I hope that you will consider all of these things as you decide who to support in November.
-
In defense of not voting for a democrat in GE
I'm as sickened as anyone by the path this country has been on for the past seven years but I don't think it's tantamount to treason to not support the winner of the democratic nomination process -- if he or she is not your candidate of choice. I think there are tremendous differences between the two candidates in terms of their effectiveness in reversing the trends of the past seven/eight years. From that perspective, I have to decide if it's in the best interest of the country to "wait" through four years of McCain and then look for the candidate of my choice to move into the White House in 2012 or to elect someone who is a democrat but unlikely to be effective (and who might be in office for the next 8 years). It's not as easy as people make it out to be. McCain can't possibly be as bad as Bush. His candidacy could be a bitter pill that's worth swallowing, though, if it means the person you feel is the best candidate has the opportunity to take over in four years -- instead of eight. Although it's something I'm weighing, it's a bit of a moot point for me, since I'm a NY resident and my state will go democrat no matter who the candidate is.
And for that reason, I'm amazed that some people suggest that the superdelegates should be able to overrule the popular and pledge delegate counts at the convention. That's just ludicrous. After all the states have had a chance to vote, the nominee should be the person with the most votes/delegates -- regardless of who won which states. We're in this mess now because the popular will of the majority was overruled by an archaic electoral college system. To suggest that we commit the same error is ridiculous and obviously colored by partisan bias.
-
PaulAndrewKirk
Where have the strong candidates gone?
They are still there. The trouble is that the Democratic Party has been hijacked by centrist weasels.
If FDR ran today, he would be painted as a Quixotic loony lefty latte liberal with issues over his ability to not cheat on his wife (Prior to contracting polio of course.)
His "Nothing to fear" speech would be mocked roundly by Hillary Clinton, who would say something along the lines of "Maybe I have lived too long..."
Obama would comment that this election would be between a woman, a black man, and FDR.
Basically, the Democratic and Republican parties have systematically prevented any possibility of another FDR ever appearing in eithe party over the last fifty years, because the idea of a stone cold leftwinger getting into power and actually fixing anything is more frightening to them than anything you could imagine.
-
@ PaulAndrewKirk
I agree that the Democrats refuse to run on big issues (though I'd pick a bone about Moynahan and Feinstein being ideal).
They should have any election locked up, but instead they accept the GOP's world view and then try to work within it.
Democrats:
"Yes, the private sector is always better than government -- but there are good things about the government..." When did government stop being "of, for and by the people" and corporate boardrooms become "the people?"
"Yes, more money for military is always good, but we can budget for our broken schools, broken health care and plan for a peaceful world while at the same time spending more on war than the rest of the world combined." Why not take on defense spending? Past Democratic capitulation has made this a tall political challenge, but it has to be mounted if we really want to reach a future we can enjoy.
"Yes, Bush's 'war on terror' is our number one priority, but..." Again, giving the GOP their election issue (and it's little more than an election issue given that this "war" has made us less safe and broke).
"Yes, democratic nations who don't play ball with our corporations are 'dictatorships' and dictatorships that do play ball are 'allies,' but we should engage in more diplomacy..." This is always so disheartening, but predictable. Again, Democratic weakness here has made turning around such bullshit a tall political order, but we need to get to work someday if we want to talk about the US being some kind of freedom beacon without lying.
What does this have to do with Obama and Clinton? For me, Obama does a better job at moving away from the GOP frame (for example, as someone else pointed out, he demagogued less about the South American dust up between Columbia and its democratically elected neighbors). Clinton, on the other hand, seems to be using the GOP frame as a weapon against her party's other candidate. Obama is not perfect here, by any means. But at least his compass is more in agreement with mine.