Letters to the Editor
-
Obama vs. Clinton. Neither have demonstrated ANY leadership when it was needed
Oh, Rebecca, I feel EXACTLY the way you do — TORN! (but not for the same reasons). I wish John Edwards was still in the race, if for no other reason than he pushed Obama and Clinton on the issues. I am SERIOUSLY thinking about voting for Edwards.
With all his ephemeral talk about "hope" and "change," the whole Obama phenomenon feels like a cult. He promises to bring Republicans and Democrats together in a Kumbaya moment, but he apparently hasn't noticed the the hard right — which is driving the debate on most of the major issues — would, if they could, cut out his heart and eat it for an afternoon snack. And unless Democrats defeat most of the 20+ Republicans up for Senate re-election in November, both Obama's and Clinton's agendas will be DOA in the Senate.
And both Clinton and Obama have serious ethical problems which will rise (or be resurrected) during the general election campaign, courtesy of the hard right. Clinton's "ethical challenges" are well-known. But the slow drip of Obama's Rezko embroglio is going to do enormous damage to his candidacy. By November, if Obama becomes the Democratic candidate, he will realize that Republicans aren't the slighest bit interested in "bipartisanship." They're out to win, and "slash and burn" is their favorite political tactic.
It is clear by now that Obama primarily appeals to independents and to affluent and well-educated Democrats, and not to the rank and file of the Democratic Party. Despite the fact that Democratic Congressional leaders have virtually caved into Bush during the past seven years, the Democratic PARTY still stands for progressive ideas while independents stand for NOTHING except the "person" that most appeals to them on a personal level. Obama basically appeals to people who want "change." But after eight years of Bush, who except the hard-core right and the neocon warmangers DON’T want "change?" "Change" is nothing more than a campaign buzzword.
Clinton is driven by polls and has worked mainly for incremental change. But Obama is NOT a progressive: his appeal to independents basically demonstrates that. Independents don't care for partisanship (or partisan ideas) because they are by definition non-partisan. But the Democratic base IS partisan, and it believes not only in partisan (Democratic) ideas but in the fact partisanship works! Ask FDR, or LBJ, or Ronald Reagan, or even Tom Delay if partisanship works:: if and when they were successful, it was because they WERE partisan, not bipartisan.
But "change" is NOT the issue with me: leadership capacity and courage, along with progressive ideas, are what matter to me. Both Obama and Clinton talk endlessly about "change" and what great leaders they will be, but neither has demonstrated the slightest scintilla of LEADERSHIP on ANY of the issues listed below, most of which have resulted in a culture of lawlessness in government, scape-goating of immigrants and the Democratic base, foreign policies and war-mongering not supported by a large portion of American citizens, the shredding of our constitutional rights, and the slow but steady transformation of our country into a police state of the Third World variety:
* Compelling redeployment of troops from Iraq;
* Confirming Michael Mukasey as Attorney General;
* Confirming Leslie Southwick as Circuit Court Judge;
* Kyl-Lieberman Resolution on Iran;
* Senate condemnation of MoveOn.org;
* The Protect America Act;
* Declaring English to be the Government's official language;
* The Military Commissions Act;
* Renewal of the Patriot Act;
* Amnesty for the law-breaking telecoms.
Why HASN”T either of them taken a LEADERSHIP ROLE on any of these issues? Are they afraid of being called unpatriotic? Are they afraid of being attacked if they stand up for what they believe in? Are they afraid of sticking their necks out too far? Is it leadership ability they lack — or is it courage?
If both Clinton and Obama have not taken seriously — or lack the courage to to fulfill — their SENATE oaths of office to "protect and defend the Constitution," what makes us think they will take seriously the Presidential oath to do the same?
TALK IS CHEAP, TALK OF "HOPE" AND "CHANGE" IS JUST CAMPAIGN PRATTLE. ACTIONS MATTER! And so far, Obama and Clinton have done NOTHING to protect and defend our basic Constitutional liberties. So a pox on both of them!
Unless one or both of them is on the Senate floor this afternoon and tomorrow, when the issue of telecom amnesty is up for discussion and votes — and these two demonstrate REAL LEADERSHIP on the issue — my vote will go to Edwards. And I invite others to reject campaign prattle if actions do not match the talk!
-
"Someone" spreading Obama religious smear
Tonight in California voters are being robocalled with the "information" that Obama is a Muslim. (He's not.)
If you want to vote for that #@#%, be my guest. I literally can't type what I think of that woman right now.
-
@ New faces, please.
When you add in Bush senior's time as VP, it adds up to 32 years of either a Bush or Clinton in the WH. If Hillary were to be re-elected, it would come to 36 years of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton rule.
-
A woman or a black man - which statement do you want to make?
I liked Kucinich, and since Obama is closer to me, policy-wise, I chose him. Then I spent many hours reading and listening to the two of them. I'd love to see a woman president, but she couldn't vote to ban cluster bombs? Seriously? NAFTA was on Bill's time. The richest people got richer faster in his reign than in GWB's. Walmart took over like the Borg while Hillary was on its board. And many many people detest her, I agree with the rightwing pundits that she'll get more Republicans out to vote against her.
All that aside, do you think the world needs us to elect an African-American who knows something about Muslims? Or do American women need a woman?
publishing anonymously out of fear
-
re: Why Iraq tells you not to vote for Hillary
Taliesan,
At the time that he made his supposedly heroic speech opposing war with Iraq, Obama was a state senator with in a district that was fairly liberal and opposed to the war. His speech was not heroic by my standards, it was a 'safe' speech that pandered to the opinions of those who would vote for him. Hillary Clinton was a US Senator in a state that suffered the worst terrorist attack in US history. For her to ignore what many thought AT THE TIME was a legitimate threat would have been political suicide.
She also did not vote for war - she voted to authorize the president to use force if necessary - to assume that she and others who voted for the authorization knew the president was a)lying about the threat and b)totally unprepared for what would follow is not supported by the facts at the time.