Letters to the Editor
-
I shed no tears for you, because you are PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Edwards' important message got buried by a media that was alternately more interested in the politics of personality between Hillary and Obama and obsessing over Edwards haircut or the square footage of his house or, yes, calling him an Orc.
And we are all poorer for his absence. Now I know how Ajax felt in Hades, when all he could do was turn silently away in disgust.
-
What was Clinton's Record on the Walmart Board?
I mean, this woman is so vetted there is nothing out there, right?
-
Vote for Kerry!
He's the most electable!
Honestly, didn't we learn last time that trying to vote based on perceived "electability" is a mistake?
I'm in the same boat as Rebecca, I don't know who I'm voting for on Tuesday. But Hillary and Barack are tied in the national polls on that question, and Hillary won New York in 2000 in spite of the claim that her negatives were too high.
I'm also a little disappointed in Hillary's tactics (which Barack now seems to have adopted), but I think the last 7 years have shown that she's pretty damn resilient in the face of right wing adversity.
At the moment I'll admit I'm leaning back toward Clinton. I think she'll slice up McCain in a debate. And I think the caricature of her painted by the right will actually benefit her when she doesn't seem to resemble it while in the national spotlight.
But Obama is a sharp guy, and I love his no bullshit approach to things. And maybe he really will be the first to actually bring out the youth vote. But like others have said, I do fear that the right wing will carve him up.
And they're both way better than John Kerry or Michael Dukakis or Walter Mondale or even Bill Clinton or Al Gore, so I feel lucky I get to vote in November with some enthusiasm.
-
Guilt?????
The fact that this decision is difficult is one thing. Butt guilt? We have two strong candidates who represents different ideals and principles -- not necessarily on issues -- but on how to run a campaign, get things done, and govern. We have two candidates with *different* experiences -- and if I may reveal my bias, I'd say Hillary having a steel-solid track record is just as much a constructed notion as the idea that Obama is a nimbus of vague hope.
But back to my point: the fact that this decision is *guilt* engendering suggests that you have made this primary vote into something that it need not be. If I may offer my gloss on how you've framed this: both candidates are flawed in ways that bother you (Obama vague and untested, Clinton (at times) unprincipled and a lightening rod for the republicans). But you also seemed to have created this tension in which each candidate represents an immoral temptation: Obama, the flashy guy, the guy who later you'll wish you'd seen through and voted for the imminently sensible Clinton. On the other hand, you might sense that there's something real and exceptional in Obama's candidacy, and its possibilities for the party, and it would be stereotypically "chickish" to pass him over for the woman because you identify with her. you've created a no-win for yourself.
Here's what I think. We should always be clear on why we're voting the way we do. And if we are clear, we should never feel guilty about it. It's F-ing exciting that in this country we all get to vote based on whatever criteria we want! It's all our own. It's our one little piece of personal stake in this country. So just be clear about it. To my mind, that means, if voting based on gender or race identity feels uncomfortable to you, try your hardest not to do. Your mom didn't hold you up to pull the lever so that years later you'd feel chained to certain choices. And Obama may indeed be an exceptional African American candidate, but that doesn't mean he deserves your vote unless he's earned it.
Don't vote because you think one candidate deserves it more, unless you accept and embrace that criteria. Don't vote because you prefer the symbolism of one candidacy over another, unless you accept and embrace that criteria.
This shouldn't be about shame or guilt. that's about you; not this vote.
-
Next question Virginia.
Who is more likely to win Virginia another conservative state trending blue that's been hit very hard by the Bush economy and that has an explosive Latin and Indonesian population - HRC or Obama.
Hands down HRC.
Again, I hate to be so calculating, but I'm tired of the GOP and this is the way one needs to think if one wants to actually WIN.
-
I'm awake
but fear mongering and all your "predictions" & which states "we" need cannot make me change my vote.
Obama all the way ... there is a REASON we are having the highest voter turnouts in decades. I PREDICT that if HRC is the nominee that turnout will go back to GW days. I know I certainly won't be voting for her.
Get real, she is not going to accomplish anything because SHE lacks the ability. Her "experience" has been in failure or wrong, immoral decision-making. I have asked 3 times now for someone to give me a positive accomplishment for HRC - nothing there!
Although I disagree vehemently with McCain on domestic policy, I trust him much more on foreign policy. For pete's sake, at least he came out in support of the Geneva Convention. I can't believe we have a viable dem candidate who has not taken a stand on that issue. Truly disgusting.
It's not just about you, me, and our pocketbooks & lifestyle in the US. Some of us think it's about making the world a better place.
-
Excuse me but ANY Democrat is a Lightening Rod for the GOP
The reason the Clintons were such a big lightening rod is they knew how to beat them.
That's a GOOD thing not a bad thing.
All the smears and mud they will throw at Obama is FRESH - Rezzo, his Rezzo financed fancy house, the nuclear bill, his no-shows in the Senate, lack of experience - and then the traditional anti-liberal classics - Kennedy and moveon endorsements, anti-war soft on defense,racism, etc.