Letters to the Editor
-
@doloresflower
I was being a bit sarcasticc :-)
Carry on...
-
Obama
Re: "That's precisely why we need him right now. He's not been in Washington long enough to become just another pol completely bought and paid for by K Street (like Hillary)."
He's against universal health insurance because he's been bought and paid for. He voted for Cheney's secret energy biil. The guy is a regular politician. What makes him different is his rhetoric, and of course, his background.
-
Until One Hour Ago, I Was Undecided Too
Dear Rebecca,
First, thank you for writing this, and for starting this mostly productive dialogue among letter writers.
Second, to those trying to win undecideds over (now and in the future), posts that mouth the latest talking points from each campaign are counterproductive.
Third, let me cut to the chase and explain how I finally decided to support Obama. I think that, honestly, he may not make a great president. Inspiring speeches don't necessarily lead to inspiring results. Kennedy was not a particularly effective president, and neither was Lincoln, at least at the beginning of their offices. They each took at least two years to hire and fire the right people and start fighting the right fights the right way.
Nevertheless, despite Clinton's greater likelihood of moving things briskly and in the right direction from the get-go, her impressive command of the details of policy debates, and probably a superior rapport with the armed services, and even despite being a likeable person, she has a slight tinge of condescension or smugness towards ordinary people, and a generous helping of perfectionism and narcissism, that shows up in some of her campaigning and debating.
She makes a great show of meeting with people at town halls, and of listening, but when she speaks, her main purpose is to speak about herself as having a perfect, flawless and impressive track record, something that no one has, and no one would expect her to have.
When she talks about people other than herself--the people that she's met at campaign events, or Americans in general--she talks about them slightly from a distance, as if they were aliens. Aliens to whom she has to be really really nice.
For example, I am reminded of her opening statement at the debate, "I think that Americans are ready once again to know that there isn't anything we can't do if we put our minds to it." Who is she to talk about what Americans are "ready for?" I also think of this statement: "You know, I've been going to town halls all over America, and I see the people out there, thousands of them, who come to hear me, and you know, they're nervous about immigration."
Assuming that there is some truth to my analysis of her character, I think that Clinton supporters underestimate the extent to which this is a problem for their candidate. She has a bit of a tin ear for when her own words may slight other people unintentionally. As a result, she accumulates people who are resentful of her; she brushes them the wrong way.
This relatively minor interpersonal failing is something that will come back to haunt her policymaking. She may be the most impressive person in the room, much like her husband, and she may have a knack for smoothing her colleagues' easily ruffled feathers in the Senate, but I think that Obama has superior sensitivity to most people's reactions to him. There are not too many people who resent him because of slights he has dealt them.
Even though Obama will not be as ready as Clinton on day one, and even though the country and the world may suffer some domestic and international setbacks as a result of his inevitable one to two year acclimation period, I think that Clinton is as risky as Obama is uncertain. There is no question that she is the better senator. But Obama doesn't just inspire followers; his quieter but more important skill is that he doesn't alienate everyone else.
I know that this doesn't speak to the feminism issue that may still be foremost in your mind, but I hope it helps anyway.
Yours Sincerely,
Benjamin
-
Huff in Puff Post
Here is a post I wrote regarding these subjects, that the Huffington post, would not "approve" to post. It is quite tame, democratically-minded insight, but it is not their agenda.
I have spoken with many intelligent, clear-minded seniors who say that the Clinton administration was the the most accomplished and successful they witnessed in their entire lives.
JFK had many more affairs while in the White House, and he is almost romanticized for his womanizing ways. Luckily for his family, he was in office before the politics of scandalizing personal marital affairs and smearing them ruthlessly and relentlessly.
Why is it that no other countries have ever put their leader on trial for personal marital affairs? Because they know it is a ridiculous, complete waste of tax payer dollars and time!
Why did we do it here in America? Why do incompetent unintelligent leaders like Bush get elected because they seem likeable, and intelligent competent leaders like the Clintons get demonized?
How many people didn't get it until Bush made such a complete and obvious mess of it all?
Because our country is obsessed with all things superficial, and avoids and misunderstands all things truly substantial.
We will never solve our substantial problems, until we can see through the hype and recognize the difference.
There will be no "Hope" for "Change."
I respect Salon.com for allowing it to be posted.
-
Don't base your decision on shallow reasons
Hillary is not at all like you characterize her.
She gets criticized no matter what she does, no matter how she behaves. People make it impossible for her.
If she is too natural, she is too much of a woman, and not enough of a leader. If she is too much of a leader she is not being a real natural woman.
People have issues with women being leaders.
I could easily say Obama has often struck me as being very arrogant, condescending, and full of himself.
Is that what I am basing my decision on? No.
Because competence is so much more importance than superficialities. And the people who know Hillary do like her.
Again, you are just reacting to superficialities and hype.
Bush was very likeable - that is superficial.