Letters to the Editor
-
The fine art of sculpting mediocrity
Against an absurd backdrop, our two heroes stride forth to wrest the world from the tampering hands of man-boy Bush. Along the way they are assailed by the Wolfish Medea, forcing them to prove their respective worth.
There is no easy dragon to slay, legend has it that he was decapitated last time.
Medea weaved a skien of words so captivating, that even BJ Bill failed to achieve a fulfilling climax as she casually avoided his smarmy advances. How then can our paltry protagonists survive?
Such despair leads our characters down a dangerous road of distrust; infighting ensues. Clinton, having suffered by proxy Medea's dagger stares understands the game, Obama new and yet to be abused refuses to play. One resigned to it, the other defiant. Both end in tragedy, but tradition dictates the rebel needs to die. So sayeth the System!
-
The real fight...
The Democrats need to stay focused on going after the Republican candidates...not each other. That is a total waste of time. With all of the BS that Guiliani and Romney say everyday, they provide an abundance of points that Hillary and Obama could (and should) go after. These petty arguments just make both candidates look bad.
-
Clinton/Obama 2008!
The more I listen to these two candidates, the more I want to see a clinton/Obama democratic ticket. I think they would be a great team and balance each other very well. I do think it would have to be Clinton for president and Obama for VP, but that would give Obama the time, exposure, and experience to run for president eight years later.
-
No Thanks!
Sorry. Obama will pass if hillary offered him the VP position. There's a huge ethics clash between the two.
She takes Lobyists money, he doesn't.
She recommended several wrong doers for pardon.
She's a surrogate for special interests, he's the Senate point man on ethics reform. And he speaks stands up to the same thing. That's a quality Michael Bloomberg recently agreed Obama had.
Hillary alone will lose the general election. Then Obama can return in 2016 with his clean undainted record.
But Democrats will not be foolish to make that mistake. Once more and more get to know Obama, they'll know that he's the most electable. Without a shadow of a doubt, Obama will be the next president of the United States.
-
Great Article
Great article by joe Connason. Well balanced.
I must say though that everybody has been irresponsible on petty things at some times in their lives and even voters can forgive that.
But you cannot afford to be irresponsible and naive on huge presidential decisions like authorizing a war (especially without asking for an exit strategy and without reading the intelligence that made the case for the war). A war IS A BIG
DEAL!!!!
You will not find a single presidential matter on which you could say Obama has been naive or irrepossible. But there are tons of cases where Hillary being Bush-Cheney Lite is justified. For a start, just watch a video from the link below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyqAR4lJCmw
-
Oh Please! Stop the Madness With the Primary Coverage Already!
"...just telling differences in style." Really? You call it style? And you don't think he's naive and inexperienced? Obama's style thus far is too use and confuse ideological rhetoric and platitudes as substantive policy proposals. I say he is naive if he believes that he can throw out statements during a debate that he'll meet with anyone, including our enemies, as a means of demonstating how he has a "fresh approach" to foreign affairs, but then comes back and qualifies that position on his website with another statement that is really nothing more than a continuation of the same policy that's been in place for the White House for decades (after the appropriate ground work, etc.). And he's inexperienced if the thinks the rest of us Democratic voters don't see it. Either he meant it the way he said it - or his team is cleaning up after him. You can call it style if you want. I call it yet another example of someone running for an office for which he is not prepared but is trying like crazy to act like he is! Kind of reminds me of George W. Bush back in 2000. Who needs more of that?
-
Hillary's not Bush-Cheney Lite
She's Kerry-Lite. First she was for the war, now she's against it. She's waffled on abortion and countless other issues. Yes, she's "positioning" herself as a centrist candidate and, to that extent, she's certainly fairly Bush-like (remember when he used to be the moderate center candidate?). We need a candidate who can take strong positions and, more importantly, defend them with vigor. I don't see that in Hillary. I'm sorry. I like her. I voted for her as my senator when I lived in NY, but I don't think she's a good presidential candidate. We don't need another waffling senatorial candidate. We need someone (notice I didn't say 'man') with guts and vision. Someone who can communicate that clearly. Someone who isn't trying to be both a little bit liberal and a little bit conservative. You want a little bit country and a little bit rock and roll? Try Donnie and Marie. If she'd take the spot, I'd offer the second place on the ticket. Bill Richardson is, by far, the most qualified candidate, but his campaign is a mess. Ah, well. So, what would be wrong with a Obama/Clinton ticket?
-
Clinton Vs Obama- unfortunately neither is electable
We have one case of too much baggage and one case of too little.
Obama's Rookieness and Clinton's weighted image are extremes amoung the electorate- disqualifying both for November '08.
If either of these qualified, unelectables receives the Nomination in Denver, start fitting Madame Giuliani for her innagural ball gown.
Weepingly unfortunate that the Democrats have already oversold themselves on Senator Clinton, while raising Senator Obama's electoral expectations beyond the realities of the fact that the US cannot yet elect a person of color- especially one so inexperienced and unspoiled.
Add the Greens and Bloomberg into the mix and the Republican nominee wins big. Even without them , the Rep's win small- but win.
Sad