- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
If one person tells you to your face honesttly what he thinks makes you tick and is only partly right (hence partly wrong) and another lies to you about everything he or she has done for twenty years, but tells you what he or she thinks you want to hear, do you go with the message or the messenger?
This is the dilemma for Pennsylvania, Indiana, and North Carolina voters who have been, as Fed Chair Ben Bernanke(multi millionaire) so delicately puts it, "dislocated" by the economic policies of the Clintons and the Bushes. More plainly, you either lost your job or were traded down in salary and benefits, despite years of loyalty to your employer.
I don't care if you have a house full of legally obtained firearms--that's a second amendment right. And how and when and where you worship is a right guaranteed by the first amendment.
I do have hopes. I hope you will keep a scorecard of the number of times the Clintons have lied to you only in order to advance themselves and their dynastic intentions. Keep a list of the things Obama has done and said that have turned you off, or made you reject him, and then see how he has handled controversy by more fully explaining what he meant,and ask yourself not whether you agree with him, but whether you think he answered straight and consistently. Before you vote, comapare the two scorecards, and ask whether Obama's consistency is worth less to you than the pattern of lies the Clintons have told to get your vote. Is honesty or pandering more likely to be worth your vote?
The likelihood is that those who can't tell the truth before they are in office are even less likely to do so once they get there, when their goals become reelection and legacy, not living up to promises they never intended to keep.
Look hard at your heart, at what your head tells you, and with clear eyes at the next four years. Then vote.
