Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
If Clinton beats the odds and wins the Democratic nomination, Republicans will say she stole it. And then they'll try to give voters a 1990s flashback.
  • and as far as feminism

    Hillary came up in a world where, for a woman to succeed, she had to be as cut throat or more than a man.

    A woman had to learn how to play the man's game and play it better. Hence, Hillary Clinton, Rudy Giuliani, George Bush, etc., all have very similar character traits, though their policy positions may differ.

    Along comes Obama, whose central contention is that the game itself is the problem.

    He has attempted to play a different game, and with success.

    Now, whatever you think of Obama's premise, that's the basic argument.

    I don't like the game as played, whether it's conducted by Giuliani, Bush or Clinton, all of whom have issues of transparency, are incapable of responding to criticism, suffer unbelievable entitlement and hubris.

    Obama, to his credit, has shown that he listens to criticism and can respond to it in an honest way.

    Anyone who heard his speech knows that he's self-reflective and open to criticism.

    This is why I'm convinced he'd be an excellent president, or at least, has tremendous potential. He adapts and learns and grows, but his response is not simply to pander, but to consider the criticism and then attempt to learn from it and to present his side of the story with humility and grace.

    He could have just shouted back or evaded the issue with arrogance or jokes, the way Bush would have.

    But he didn't.

    Frankly, if we can't recognize just how special this guy is, God help us.

    Not to say everyone must vote for him, but at least recognize and evaluate the very real strengths he has.

    For my part, I've concluded that Hillary's strengths suit her better to policy jobs. A cabinet post, her current seat in the senate, whatever.

    But I've not seen evidence that she brings anything unique to the table as a president.

    The president hires wonks and then listens to them and makes decisions.

    The problem with Bush wasn't that he was inexperienced, but that he's an entitled, empty, intellectually lazy, totally shallow hull of a man.

    Whatever you can say about Obama, none of these things apply to him.

    He'd make a great and original president, if only we'll give him a chance.