Letters to the Editor
-
@Renegade
Love it!
My husband and I too have been looking at Canadian apartments to try waiting this thing out is McCain gets in. I'd really ahte to make the move permanently...but...
I'm so fed up with Bush, his war and this economy! I'm an Indie who has voted repub before and will likely end up paying higher taxes if Dems get in but SO WHAT? who the heck is gonna be able to pull our economy out of the TRILLIONS of dollars of deficits we've gotten under Bush? Sure aint gonna be that woman with three kids and a job make 9 bucks an hour who is gonna run out of money to put in her gas tank to get to work BEFORE she gets her next paycheck....
People who can't see that forest for the trees are either amazingly stupid OR incredible LIARS.
-
@Ana
I think if we're all honest the rhetoric is flying in both directions. I think however that the natural tendency is to remember the rhetoric that offends you and ignore the rhetoric that you agree with.
I think it's been bad on both fronts.
I also think that statistically either candidate is positioned well with MOST REASONABLE peopel saying they will vote for the other (90% of Obama votes said they'd vote for clinton and 75% of Clinton voters for Obama). These numbers are (to me) an indication that we ARE keeping in mind who the real enemy is... take heart :)
-
@Amity
OMG, you are my hero this morning.
-
Are you kidding?
The GOP would clearly love to face Hillary Rodham Clinton in the fall. The GOP cannot make the same attacks against Obama (experience, economy, security) without opening up the huge gaping wound that is the state of our nation...under THEIR guy GWB. I'm sure they'll try but look how effective their attacks have been? They have no higher ground from which to attack and they know it. Toss in their disgruntled base, an angry electorate, and Obama's dedicated following and you have the recipe for a Democratic ticket win.
OTOH, Clinton can do one thing far more effectively than McCain could do in his wildest dreams: Rally the GOP base around him. That is a clear and unavoidable truth. Let's also recall that the higher road taken by Obama will most certainly NOT be taken by the GOP. I look forward to a long and unhappy rehashing of Monica-gate, travel-gate and every other scandal from the Clinton years. I almost forgot. Clinton also will have those who blame her for her vote on the Iraq war to confront. Yes, it's clear the GOP wants Clinton as the competition.
-
Obama experience = Lincoln experience
Let's get over this 'experience' thing, shall we? Obama has exactly the same experience that Abraham Lincoln had when he ran for POTUS: eight years in the Illinois legislature and two years in the US senate. No one contends that Lincoln was too inexperienced or too unprepared for the job. Lincoln was a smart guy and so is Obama. He's well up to the task.
So is Hillary Clinton. She could unquestionably do the job. She may be tougher than Obama and is almost certainly more of a hawk. That last past is one reason I prefer him.
By the way, lolcait, I'm over 55 and I like Obama. Most of my friends are over 55 and they like Obama. So your market research leaves a lot to be desired. Admit it, you're basing your vote on emotions, not on logic. You say you'd vote for Clinton or McCain but not Obama even though Obama's policy positions are most closely aligned with Clinton's while McCain suggests a thousand year occupation of Iraq. Puleeeze.
You simply don't 'like' Obama, lolcait, which is your prerogative, but why shoot yourself and your party in the foot because of it? Suck it up and do the right thing, which is vote for whatever Democrat wins the nomination this time around because that's what the country needs. You don't have to like every candidate. Just use your head about who you vote for.
I believe Obama will bury McCain in a landslide. I'm not as confident of Clinton's ability to do that in view of the sharply negative reactions she draws from about half the people. Obama does not have that problem.
-
But to answer the question:
The GOP would rather face Clinton because she motivates Republicans to come out and vote against her, whereas Obama does not have that particular effect.
-
Best take on the Hillary campaign I have seen
http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/hillary-attack-obama.php?page=1
-
Anger Toward Clinton
I see a lot of concern from Clinton supporters about how angry some posters are about her and her candidacy, and I understand how that is discomforting if you support her. I'll try to explain.
Despite many posts that cast it this way, it is not a choice between A and B. It is a choice between two people who are different. Clinton has a history (some call it experience) and that matters to some of us. For me, her history -- right through the way she has managed a highly negative campaign -- makes me angry. It has nothing to do with my love for Obama (I have clearly not been an Obama flag waver).
While Clinton supporters have claimed that Obama is just as negative, that's hard to defend. He has asked for her tax records (a standard call for anyone running for office -- he hasn't even suggested that she's done something bad, he's simply asked that we see how the money loaned to her campaign was earned). He could have gone a million different directions: her divisive nature; her legal troubles; her investment problems (she's gone wild on his one small example); her "experience" as a corporate lawyer and Walmart board member; etc. He has done none of this, but he could have. Meanwhile, she has thrown the kitchen sink at him, even going so far as to say that he isn't as prepared as McCain to be president, despite McCain's experience showing nothing but promotion of agendas antithetical to Democratic principles.
Of course we can argue about this. And we can argue about whose supporters are more vitriolic (I don't think it can be said that Obama supporters take this prize uncontested). But these are not two sports teams -- they are not A and B -- they are different.
There is simply less to criticize with Obama (not because he's better, but because he has less experience in the dirty world of national deal-making). Whether that experience is worth something -- good or bad -- or it is meaningless, is up to voters. But that lack of negatives shows up here, and results in an interesting pattern:
Obama supporters are expressing their anger at Clinton. Clinton supporters are expressing their anger at Obama supporters (on balance, obviously not as a rule). The only attacks on Obama that have much merit are about his experience. The few other attacks range from myopic attention to Reznik while ignoring Clinton's more substantial such issues, or based on something more loathsome (ShawnWM talking about Obama's support from blacks -- or "people who don't work" -- or others who say "he just doesn't look right").
I don't judge Clinton by her supporters. I judge her by her actions (or experience, if you like). Could Clinton supporters (and other Obama supporters) do the same?