Letters to the Editor
-
The GOP is leaving its options open
I guess I missed it but I failed to see where Clinton implied that McCain would make a better commander in chief. She is simply stating the obvious...McCain's experience in that arena is well known. All she implies is that she is a better foil to McCain. Moreover, her contention is true.
Because Bill and Hillary have always sought each other's advice on political matters, it goes without saying that Clinton is more experienced in every area where the White House is concerned. Claims that she has no White House experience ring false.
I got the distinct impression from statements by the GOP that it is an open question as to whom they would rather face in November. The idea that they prefer Hillary is the implication of the author of this article rather than a stated belief of the Republicans.
-
Wouldn't that be Whom would the GOP rather face?
Just asking
-
@Garvey
You wrote:
"To not-count Florida or Michigan delegates is patently discriminatory and denies voting rights constitutionally protected under the voting Rights act of 1965"
Hogwash. Utter hogwash. Don't be so quick to throw around words like "disenfranchisement"...that's a VERY serious allegation, one that cuts to the heart of democracy. Sorry bub, but not being allowed to help nominate a candidate kinda sucks, but it is NOT disenfranchisement. I know Clinton has no problem tossing that word around...but it doesn't change the fact that she's wrong...not seating Florida and Michigan is a bummer, but not disenfranchisement. Period.
cheers
-
Clinton Has More Experience
For instance, hillary knows how to;
1. Sell pardons.
2. Promise one thing, do another.
3. Accept illegal campaign contributions.
4. Interpret all rules such that they favor her.
5. Lie.
6. Get FBI files on political opponents . . . when's Glenn Greenwald going to talk about this? If FISA warrants a weekly column, how about writing about someone who actually abused intelligence gained illegally?
Yep. billary's got the experience.
-
dfield makes some good points...
.....however you are not really addressing the Reagan Dems who have been voting against their own self interests. They have finally been impacted by right wing economic theory so badly that they are open to voting Democratic.They are not going for Obama.They could very well go for McCain when the Republican opposition gets into full gear on Obama in the general. If we forget about them we are not only missing an opportunity but going against progressive economic principles.
-
rphillips111
You cannot honestly conflate Obama with Hitler and Stalin just because he can motivate voters and speak well, can you?
Whatever point you were building to in your post got shot to hell the second you pulled that one out.
-
show me
To put it bluntly:
The "Reagan" Dems who have dragged the party into being an inefectual mess can go fuck themselves. They have done enough damage, listening to them is only going to do more.
It is time to actually listen to the left. The left has only been right about every major issue in the last eight years after all.
-
@Person
Hmmm. Well... good luck with that in November.
-
national ramifications?
My (democratic) governor just got indicted in a prostitution ring. (NY) Just thought I'd share.
-
The GOP would rather run against Obama
"most of my colleagues at work are middle class Republicans, many of whom were in the military. Over the past several weeks, I have heard several coworkers admit they were not only willing, but looking forward to voting for Obama. At the same time, they would never in a billion years pull the lever for H. Clinton."
Not one of those colleagues will vote for Obama in the fall. They may say so now, but that's because it's not a general election.
At this point in the race, Dukakis had a 30% lead over Bush.
Campaigns are about themes, and Obama's current theme, change, can't be run against McCain and win. Since McCain has by far a better record of change.
Do you really think your military friends are going to vote for Obama after being reminded for 3 months that Obama didn't put his hand over his heart while the National Anthem played?
Only, the attack won't be it was during the Anthem, they'll say during the Pledge of Allegiance, and Obama's response of "No, it was during the Anthem" does as much harm as the attack itself.
Make no mistake, McCain has some huge advantages in the general election. He's the one republican that can actually win in the fall.
-
Major Differences
I know that anecdotal evidence is not "empirically valid." Nevertheless, I do indeed know at least a few people in their 20's, who have never voted, who registered this year solely so they could vote for Obama. These are voters who have never in their lives seen anyone in the White House besides a Bush or Clinton, and they don't like it. They're not stupid. They understand the concept of creeping oligarchy, as well as the threat of hereditary elitism to true democracy.
To say that there is no difference between Obama and Hillary is wrong. Hillary voted for the Iraq war. Obama was not in the Senate when the vote occurred, but he openly and vocally opposed Hillary's position, and, at the time, people said it would damage his career. He took a great political risk to be on the right side of an important issue. That's experience and judgment that matters, especially to young voters who are disillusioned with the way that personal political careers and party loyalty have become more important to our leaders than doing the right thing.
On one of the most important issues of the day, Hillary is closer to John McCain than Obama. She did not vote her conscience. She hedged her bet, at the expense of lives and money, because she thought it would help her presidential run. So why would I vote for her over McCain?
Also, Hillary's health care plan, while being touted as "more complete," is only so because she would mandate individuals to buy health insurance, as we now legally have to buy car insurance from private corporations.
I am all for health care reform, and it is an urgent priority. But forcing me to buy it from a private company--and garnishing my wages if I do not--was not exactly the solution I had in mind. Indeed, such a "solution" is outrageous, in my opinion.
I'll admit that I have not had time to thoroughly scrutinize each candidate's official position on every single issue, from farm subsidies to the Tamil Tigers. I think that most working Americans, if they're being honest, would admit the same partial ignorance.
However, on two issues that I easily consider to be among the most crucial--Iraq and health care--there are substantive differences that will affect me as a working American in the lowest tax bracket.
Obama would get my vote; Hillary would not.