Letters to the Editor
-
Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw
No need to say much, just follow link.
-
Obama won the exchange
Although you appear fairly even-handed in this debate on the debate, Mr. Conason, I think you might favor Clinton a bit more, just from the language you use, even though there's a sly wink or two Obama's way.
You talked of the "frenzied" efforts of the participants to score debating points -- but as I see it, the frenzy has come entirely from the Clinton side as they've tried to come out from under a mischaracterization of Obama that made them look bad, and a response that made them look foolish.
After the debate, in reaction to Clinton's slam, Obama, to his credit, gave a personal, clear, and concise explanation of his views that further illuminated his position -- and most importantly, he didn't back down. That left the Clinton cadres of PR people sputtering, and having to do several re-interpretations of Clinton's original remarks in hurried updates to NBC.
I really think Obama won the point on that one -- especially because he spoke his points himself.
Clinton had handlers speak for her, Madeleine "If we have to use force, it is because we are America" Albright, and Richard Holbrooke speak for her. Clinton had various swells speak for her, and Obama just went out and clarified his points himself. That says a lot.
let's sweep aside the cheap rhetoric. Sen. Obama isn't "naive" or "irresponsible," and Sen. Clinton isn't "Bush-Cheney lite."
While Obama definitely is not naive or irresponsible, both in terms of Clinton's cheap rhetoric aimed at Obama, and also her "have these others speak for me" approach to defending her views (to say nothing of her bellicose "We won't talk to Cuba" nonsense in the first place) Clinton definitely came off as Bush-Cheney Lite.
-
Style Versus Substance? Nuances, Both.
Whether Senator Clinton or Senator Obama "scored" any points for her/his desire to engage our adversaries diplomatically is, literally, much ado about nothing. It is, more correctly, a case of subtle nuances of the same position.
A seasoned politician such as Senator Clinton may be more reserved in achieving the goals of rapprochement while a greener Senator Obama would wade right in with abandon. Both, however, would encourage diplomacy over confrontation. That is something that the Bush administration has virtually eschewed.
I like both Hillary Clinton AND Barack Obama; they will make a fine pair of candidates: she for President and he for Vice-President. Then, in 2016, after Mr. Obama has had eight years to "season" as Vice-President, he will make a formidable candidate to become President.
Until then, though, columnists and commentators will parse every sentence, gesture and glance of both candidates, trying to ascertain intent and ascribe motive. It would be refreshing to read what actually transpired rather than who perspired.
-
Maybe she is Bush/Cheney lite....
Sorry Joe -- Hillary may in fact be Bush/Cheney lite. She didn't read the intelligence report and proudly voted for the war. Now she's against it...but one can't help feeling that it is because the polls are there, rather than because she's had some supreme revelation about how baddly things have gone, or is at all repentent for having given the Bushies a pass at the beginning. The MO reminds me of the way this Administration operates. Now, she sets her attack dog (Wolfie) on Obama -- smooth though he is, and he makes good points -- it is the smugness of the "She's the most experienced..." argument that bothers. Can't you just see him/her accusing someone who disagrees with her on foriegn policy or healthcare as somehow caring less about America?
-
Thanks, Joe
I really like how you started out:
"In keeping with the stupid gamesmanship of primary politics, encouraged by the peanut gallery of the Washington press corps, they must magnify small differences and parse snipped phrases. And along with their flacks and surrogates, they must pretend that these sophomoric maneuvers have actual meaning for the making of American policy. Meanwhile, everyone involved is trying desperately to prove what tough weenies they are."
It's nice that you stripped the illusion of truth from the stupidity of what they are currently engaged in.
The rest of the article is pretty much crap.
Poco
-
The Paranoia/Fearmongering Complex
For a refreshing political ideological romp, I encourage you to look into Republican candidate Ron Paul. He is a Constitutionalist whose views get beyond the petty fearmongering that we've been fed for the past several decades.
He, like Obama, believes in a foreign policy that reaches past war as a means to all ends. He has NEVER voted for the war in Iraq. He is the most principled candidate available from either party. He wants to end the selective service requirement. He believes in diplomacy and free trade, and he wants to end the Iraq war NOW.
To ease your fear of looking into a Republican, know that Ron Paul has been cast aside by his colleagues. His campaign is primarily Internet-driven so far, and it attracts Americans from ALL political persuasions.
Here is a refreshing and promising article about the Paul campaign's progress:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/sutton1.html
Come join the Ron Paul Revolution!
-
@AnaHadWolves
Then, in 2016, after Mr. Obama has had eight years to "season" as Vice-President, he will make a formidable candidate to become President.
Look how well that worked out with Al Gore. Too much seasoning? Or maybe the wrong kind of seasoning was used on Gore, eh?
I know the Clintonians would love for Obama to take a back seat for Clinton, but the fact is that this would do everything to serve their interests, and none to serve his, and wouldn't help the country or the Democratic Party. What's more, Obama would be saddled with all the Republicaneering the Clintons would do in the White House if they have another turn there.
Obama should stay on the path he's taken. If Democratic primary voters get it, they'll vote for Obama; if they don't, they'll vote Clinton -- there's a reason why Obama's got the support of higher-earning, better-educated women voters, and why the worse-educated, lower-earning women are all for Clinton. Clearly, the Clintons have won the reflexive women's vote, whereas Obama's got a more savvy constituency among women voters, who seem to be paying attention to what he's saying, versus focusing on that he's a man.
I'm more than a little dismayed at the institutional power Clinton brings to the mix, these Clinton Cadre people they trot out as needed, and their disdainful attitude they take to the grassroots of the party they want to hijack once again. The Democratic Party, to survive, must not be a grasstops enterprise, sorry.
Bill Clinton had the luxury of pretending to be a Democrat in the 90s, when things were a lot easier, before the gloves really came off; Hillary Clinton pretends to be a Democrat in the 21st Century at her own risk -- the GOP has definitely drawn lines in the sand, and hewing close to their lines isn't what a Democrat needs to do.
If Obama loses in the primary, I don't know what he'll do, but I think it's telling that if he loses, people will expect him to consider a VP spot on a Clinton ticket, whereas if Clinton loses out, I think nobody thinks she'd be content with that, or would expect that to happen.