Letters to the Editor
-
Huh?
Your self-involved, tortured conscience of a liberal bullcrap is pathetic and hard to take. Get a grip! Vote for what's best for the country, not all this other crap your write about.
-
Undecided?
You mean you used all this space to say what? Who cares why you are undecided? Really. Just make sure you vote for a Democrat. And agonise in private, please. This is pitiful.
-
People used to talk about who they voted for ...
... because to vote then was the public act of a citizen.
Now we're consumers with a privacy fetish, not citizens, and we're choosing not human candidates but brands, and fantasizing that, by our private actions of choosing our preferred brand, we can change the course of history for the better.
To the extent that this could be true, it is, alas, too late. A million Iraqis are dead (one way or another)thanks to our taxes, passivity, and wish for vengeance on whoever. We will pay a high price for this in many more ways than the cost of filling our gas tanks.
The Supreme Court is set in stone for at least a decade, and our political "leaders" are going to have all they can do to keep us fed, clothed, and medicated in the aftermath of the financial meltdown that is now transpiring. This is happening because, as non-citizens, we allowed "our" government to de-activate regulations put in place in the 1930s to prevent another great depression (the president who signed off on this during a congressional Christmas recess in 1999 shall remain unnamed).
Things might have been different if, over the past 7 years, we had "voted" by taking to the streets, or going to jail for refusing to pay taxes towards the "mammal's" toy soldiers games, but we didn't. That would have sent a clear message to DC, and to the rest of the world. But, as non-citizens, we were way too busy using his tax breaks to redecorate our houses, which would always be worth more and more and more.
So vote by all means for the brand of your choice, and preferably for someone who matches as closely as possible your own identity and interests - it's the least you can do as a non-citizen.
By the way, what makes you think that the current occupant of the WH is a mammal? Mammals are warm-blooded, aren't they?
-
@RevMom
Hillary Clinton is not "Mary," and so Mary's decisions have nothing to do with hers. Perhaps Hillary really loves Bill. Perhaps she made her decisions with Chelsea in mind. Perhaps her personal life means nothing for the general public, since what we really care is about her work in public office, and her personal life is besides the point.
-
Rebecca should be practical
Vote for the one who will do better in the general election with independents and in states on the edge. Symbolism in the form of voting for someone based on group identity can't be more important than ensuring the right outcome in November.
-
Stunned.
It's 2008, not 1958. I'm appalled that Traister is still bogged down and thrashing around with the thought that she's voting for a woman or an African-American. Surely we've progressed beyond this point by now. Perhaps she should consider instead voting for the person who is likely to be the best judge of character, who will pick the best team of advisors, who will restore our international credibility, and inspire the US electorate to look beyond their wallets and selfish concerns, to try to lift the country out of and beyond the catastrophic decisions of the last 8 years.
-
I strongly sympathize--but what about Bill Clinton back in the White House?
I share many of Traister's feelings. Frankly, on the pure level of policy Clinton's ideas may well be the best (see Paul Krugman's NYT articles on the Obama vs. Clinton health care plans). But, assuming McCain is the Republican nominee, Clinton is the weaker candidate. As another NYT commentator I respect, Frank Rich, asserted--there is no way that Bill Clinton is going to remain passive once he is back in the White House as First Spouse. He is too much of a narcissist. Hillary is "Billary". Like it or not, she carries the Clinton baggage and is widely despised. And let's not forget how many reactionary things came to be under Bill--NAFTA, welfare "reform" and the total discrediting of health care reform, not to mention Bill's sexual shenanigans while president of a puritanical country. Independents will remember all this and more, and assume that a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill. Obama, on the other hand, is a fresh face. He is not as much of a target. Independents and many Republicans like him. He has a chance of winning. I fear that Hillary does not. It is just that simple.
-
Obama might win in November
Bill Clinton led the charge against the working class, which were the traditional core of the Democratic party, with his "Third Way" and "Radical Center" theories. Now his wife posits herself as a candidate for "Change" against all history and logic.
Hillary Clinton is willing to sacrifice a Democratic presidency on the pyre of her ambition, blooding Obama so badly that Republicans won't even have to look for lies to spread. What the public will have seen of her in action in the primary will be horrible enough that no one who is undecided will gravitate toward electing her.
How can ANY Democrat, who has the interests of the party at heart, support this noxious twosome for returning to the White House? Can they honestly believe that the Republicans, even in their weakened condition, cannot rise to occasion and slay a diseased beast of a candidacy like this? The GOP has held the White House for 7 of the last 10 elections. A Clinton redux is certain to ensure that it's 8 of 11.
-
Thank you
You have summed up my feelings more eloquently than I ever could.
I also find myself conflicted because a vote for Clinton is not just a vote for Clinton. If I were just voting for her alone, I would feel okay with it, because I do believe she's the best candidate. There's a great deal to be said for a woman who has craftily found a way to smash her way through the glass ceiling. Feminists of all stripes bemoan her hawkishness and say she's sold out. But I do believe that if I asked her, she would say the ends justify the means, she did what she had to do to get here, and for all the complaining, we are missing the point: She Is Here. But in selling out, she has made it so a vote for her is not just a vote for her. It is a vote for the Clinton machine, a continuation of 20 years that has been Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush. That was brought home to me during the South Carolina primary, when Bill Clinton was suddenly getting more press than anyone else, just for campaigning for his wife.
Obama-mania sounds so enticing. Like the 90s catchphrase from the X-files "I want to believe." But I don't. There is no change in this town. It's just pretty words spoken very well. The political system has over a century of entrenchment. You can't tell me he's really going to get here and change anything. It's patent nonsense.
But every time I've seen him speak he has been so compelling....
My father sent me this link in response. I pass it on now to you:
(http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/02/02/for-you/)