- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"yes he's interested because it's a powerful position, not because it entails hard work and dedication."
On what grounds to you base this assertion? Did Rush send you a deck of Republican talking-point flash-cards?
One of the CNN pundits last night mentioned that Republicans tend to nominate presidential candidates when it is their "turn." Is this what you're upset about? - That it just isn't Obama's turn yet?
"Hillary at least has shown us she's a hard worker and has actually worked for the betterment of many people and she's been around long enough to know what it takes to be president and she ACTUALLY proves it with her comprehensive plan (though y'all will dismiss it no doubt). Yet she's criticized of being evil, ambitious, etc..."
If we were electing a Health Care Czar, she might well have my vote. The presidency is far more complex than that. Obama was smart enough to know that the Iraq invasion would be a disaster and he had the character to vote that way. This is a key area where Clinton failed for many people. I also find it odd that you lament the fact that some people criticize Hillary as being ambitious while you criticize Obama for being ambitious. What's up with that.
"How can you trust that this guy is not just interested in the power, instead of serving and working for the people?"
You could ask the very same question of anybody running for public office.
