Letters to the Editor
-
Long road ahead
I don't think that either Clinton or Obama is electable right now. She inspires such amazing hatred from some people, and not all of them Republicans. Moreover, as the Atlantic pointed out a few issues past, she's proven herself to be very effective in the Senate and frankly, we need her there. (Hillary Haters: Yes, I know you disagree.)
Obama is troubling to me; give him another term of experience, give him more executive experience of any kind, and I would be enthusiastic about him. But no, not right now. Not this year.
After eight years of George Bush, who'd never done anything but run businesses straight into the ground and then a stint as Gov of Texas, a figurehead job, I want someone who knows how stuff works and can get things done.
I'd much, much rather see Edwards or Richardson at the top of the ticket. I realize neither is a front runner at the moment, but we're a long way from the convention, still, and with Hillary and Obama whacking away at each other like a Punch and Judy show, who knows what may happen?
-
Hillary won't win the general election
I am a moderate republican. I cannot stand the sound of Mrs. Clinton's voice. I simply was disgusted with the rapid response attack mode reminiscent of James Carville back in 1992 that sought to discredit Obama for comments uttered by former Clinton supporter David Geffen that said the Clintons had taken lying to an art form.
That swift attack was so reminiscent of attack mode politics whose recent incarnation one can argue was started by Lee Atwater and then co-opted and "improved" by Carville etal.
People are sick of that, be they republican or democrat. I don't give a rat's ass who started it, I want to see it end. When Hillary did her strafe bombing rapid attack on Obama and Geffen, it backfired, as it reminded the entire nation why they will be very happy to see anyone with the last name Bush or Clinton retreat from the national stage permanently.
That's why she can't win. The only way she knows how to rebut is to attack as viciously as possible. For me, the crystallizing reason why I do not like the woman came during her health care initiative. Secretive and based on ridiculous economic assumptions a college sophomore could figure out, she was getting increasingly testy with the media. Some camera stick got shoved into her face as she was in the halls of congress before or after testifying and asked her what her plan would cost small business.
She wheeled, got her steely-eyed stare and said, "I can't be concerned with every undercapitalized business in America."
Really Hillary? Small business happens to be the new job growth engine as Fortune 500 companies lay people off left and right. Such an arrogant and glib dismissal speaks volumes for the woman.
Obama, on the other hand, intrigues me. He has made some very telling comments that strike a chord with me. He has simply stated that boomers have been fighting with one another on the national scene for 40 years and the rest of the nation is tired of this intergenerational squabble. The nation wants to move on. Similarly he handled Hillary's Geffen attack with relative aplomb. He kept his cool, further re-enforcing her nastiness.
I'll give Obama serious consideration if the Republican party continues its rightward turn into the Evangelical Church of Lasting Intolerance (E-CoLI). I will not give Hillary any consideration at all. She has way too much baggage and complicity during a period of heightened partisan nastiness that simply has to come to a close and be put behind us for the good of the country. She's far too nasty and divisive that is now being coupled with a craven lust for power. It altered Bob Dole in 1996 and John McCain in 2008 on my side of the aisle, and it is clear it is causing her to tack and turn as well. She no longer tells us what she thinks, preferring instead to tell us what she thinks we want to hear.
She's an integral part of the political paradigm we need to break for the good of the country.
-
Formidable Qualifications? Pah!
Clinton's website says "Hillary visited more than 80 countries and met countless world leaders as America's representative." How many of those countries were visited as First Lady and how many as a Senator? I'm not giving her credit for her First Lady tag-a-longs.
Obama may be inexperienced, but he is indeed incredibly refreshing. With all the other Democratic candidates I want to ask the question - who owns this one? (Except for Kucinnich, perhaps - too bad he doesn't stand a chance.) Obama, however, has a distinctly independent ring and, Heavens to Betsey, I think he's really in this because he wants to help our country! Now that is refreshing. If he gets paired up with a VP that has extensive foreign policy experience, he's a shoe-in.
-
Obama is the Answer!
There are some real difference between these two candidates but campaigns like this actually push them closer together.
Still, Barack Obama would send a message throughout the world that America is no longer the same nation that elected George Bush. That new perception would help America in promoting a new foreign policy.
Moreover, I am really sick of Hillary re-writing the past. She helped her husband pass free trade treaties and now she claims to have been fighting for working men and women for three decades. She says lobbyist funds don't influence her but we know she switched her views on a major bill facing the credit card industry once she left the White House and had to raise campaign funds. Finally, we know she voted for the war and against the Levin Amendment that would have required more inspections and negotiations before going to war but now she claims that she opposed the war and supported further negotiations.
It's time for a change. Let's vote Obama!