Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
Wednesday's debate was devoid of substance and rife with gotcha politics. In the end, Obama seemed to win simply by not losing.
  • "O most pernicious woman! O villain, villain, smiling, damned villain!"

    In response to a question about whether she thought Barack Obama is qualified to be president Hillary Clinton answered: "Yes, yes, yes." As if, she couldn't believe what she was saying. I couldn't believe it either given that she has said before that only she and John McCain are qualified.

    Furthermore, Clinton boxed herself into a corner by pledging to withdraw troops from Iraq "regardless of the situation on the ground." This after she earlier claimed that she would draw down "responsibly."

    Lastly, if you're making $250,000 a year you are no where near middle class as far as I'm concerned. Clinton's unequivocal pledge not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year is an outright lie. She knows it will be impossible to fix healthcare, address global warming, insure social security, etc. and not raise taxes on 95% of Americans (only 6% of Americans make more than $100,000 a year).

    By contrast, Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on those making $75,000 or less is far more reasonable and, dare I say, honest. His plan to draw down troops in Iraq over a 16 month period under the advisement of his generals is also more realistic and practical.

    In short, Clinton is a liar. She will say or do anything to win. And this whole argument that she is tough is a load of bull. If Obama weren't tough there is no chance he would have made it this far. Clinton's claim to toughness is really a claim to being dirty and unscrupulous. I'd rather have tough and honest than tough and dirty.