Letters to the Editor
-
Thanks for setting some thing straight about the Clintons!
I was just complaining on Greenwald's thread that no one has done this recently. Progressives can think what they like about Hillary's campaign and it's tactics but they should know the truth about the lies and smears. Unfortunately some of the Obama supporters are so immature and wedded to their Clinton hatred that they continue to spout falsehoods even in this thread.They remind me of the Bush supporters..blindly faithful truth be damned.There are many good reasons to support Obama and they can be made without Clinton hating.What they either don't realize and probably don't care about is they are aleinating the more than 50% of Democrats who support Hillary.They are the opposite of being helpful when it comes to coaliation building and if they don't watch it they may find themselves in a shacky electorial group consisting of 'true believers' undependable Independents and lying Republicans.For the first time in my life as a card carrying Democrat I have actually been finding myself thinking....maybe I will sit this one out....maybe I will write in Hillary? I'm afraid that instead of building a movement Obama is building a mob.He will be responsible for it too for not addressing it.
-
The politics of change?
Turns out that back in '07, the Chicago Tribune published a series of profiles of Obama which appear to be fully and responsibly researched. The link below is to the segment which explores how Obama got his start in Illinois politics. It's worth a look, especially as this story graphically demonstrates Obama's embrace of old school, bare knuckle politics.
A last note here. Please, Obama supporters: when, oh when, are you going to admit that your candidate does not inhabit a superior moral plane? He's a politician who's in the business of winning - just like all the others. Can we please remove the foolishness of this stance from the debate, sooner rather than later?
If the following link doesn't come through in its entirety, you can easily access the series on Obama by visiting the Chicago Trib site.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04,1,7336556.story
-
Addendum to above link
Just type in 'ory' at link's end so it reads 'story'
-
The Only Solution
Since neither Obama nor Clinton can achieve the number of delegates required to win the nomination outright; and the Michigan and Florida debacle looms as an unresolvable nightmare; and the longer this conflict continues the more divided the Democrats will be and the better McCain's chances become. Therefore:
Hillary agrees to a single term and invites Obama to run as a Vice President. The party is united and the Florida/Michigan issue becomes moot. If elected, she makes history and can institute her reforms, yet shows her willingness to sacrifice her ambition (for two terms) for the good of her party and her country -- enhancing her popularity.
For Obama it's a good move for similar reputation-enhancing reasons -- he sacrifices ambition for the top job for the good of party and country. In four years, he (presumably) becomes president while still relatively young (their relative ages and experience make this the only workable sequence).
Any other scenario will either require a dark horse candidate like Gore or will split the party with disastrous electoral results.
-
Straw Man.
"Please, Obama supporters: when, oh when, are you going to admit that your candidate does not inhabit a superior moral plane?"
Ok, I'll admit it. He's just a man -- we're all aware of that. But, I'm not supporting Obama because he inhabits a superior moral plane. I am supporting Obama because his record on campaign finance and ethics reform is much stronger than Sen. Clinton's.
Now, when, oh when, will Clinton supporters admit that their candidate has already lost the nomination? Do the math, people. It's not that hard. As I said before, Clinton supporters keep talking about an "Obama cult", but then they keep spinning magical happy thoughts for their candidate in full defiance of reality. IT'S OVER.
-
Jack.
With all due respect, your solution sucks. Particularly given that Hillary has already mathematically lost the nomination. The closest she'll be getting to the White House is if President Obama deigns to let her on some kind of Health Care Task Force. Which, frankly, is probably a bad idea, given that she ran the last serious attempt at health care reform right into the ground.
-
Clinton supporters
I have never said that Obama occupies a higher moral plane. I have contended that Clinton's attacks are generally more baseless -- and that she is not a defender of progressive values, whatever her rhetoric over the years. I ask you to respond to the following:
Clinton endorsed McCain over Obama citing her view that this election is about national security and McCain, unlike Obama, has the requisite experience.
Question 1: Is it okay that a candidate running for the Democratic nomination has placed George Bush's view -- that fighting "terror" militarily is our raison d'etre -- over reproductive choice, civil liberties, public services and government regulation (issues on which Obama is VASTLY superior to McCain)?
Question 2: If it is okay to make the most important issue our military "war on terror" -- as McCain understands it (remember, he's more qualified to "cross that threshold" according to Clinton) -- then how does Clinton match up to McCain without nuancing it in ways that would support Obama's opposition to the war? After all, McCain has more "national security experience" than she and his position was that the military option was okay, Bush just did it the wrong way (essentially Clinton's position given her vote to authorize the whole thing).
-
@Reality-based
You say: "I have contended that Clinton's attacks are generally more baseless -- and that she is not a defender of progressive values."
I contend that Obama's are just as baseless, so who can win this game? Ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. As far as Clinton not being a defender of progressive values: if this is so, why is she getting the votes of those who most appreciate and stand to gain from those values - women, blue collar workers, those with lower incomes...the core Democratic base? Why is she often cited as having done the most to advocate for women and children, not to mention minorities? The reality for me is that Obama talks a good game about progressive values (when he remembers to), but his record doesn't support his claims.