Letters to the Editor
-
bensonrt "Obama-Clinton" ticket
I hope Obama isn't that stupid to agree to this scenario.
It wouldn't be long before he might have some mysterious "accident" befall him, since she would then take over the Commander in Chief position. She will do anything to get the WH.
Think Ron Brown, Vince Foster, Marcy Park and all of the alleged bodies buried in Arkansas - bodies of people who knew too much about the Clintons.
Scary.
-
Dear Undecided -- with such a leading question -- Obama of course
Too many reasons why; and some POINT DIRECTLY to Bill and some are Hillary herself (don't be fooled) and why she failed with her major healthcare policy in the 90's -- just read David Brooks column. Boy do I wish I had that info while I was phoning for Obama votes and spoke with two women in their 80's who felt they needed to see a woman in the Oval office before they died -- and here at 64 I though I was a member of the older womens group and couldn't understand why my generation of friends wanted Obama and not Billary.
So undecided, this is a historic vote, but don't throw it away -- I know I will see a woman, but first we need to unite our country and move forward and then it will be more meaningful -- having a woman who divides us is as bad as having had Bush and WE WOULD NEVER BE TRUSTED TO HOLD THAT OFFICE AGAIN! Let us not spoil it for our daughters and granddaughters.
-
The Quiet of the Voting Booth Will Clear Your Head
I’m also among the bewitched, bothered and bewildered. Do I vote with my heart or my head? At first my heart told me Barak Obama; my head said Hillary Clinton. But when Hillary gets down off her “stump-box” and reveals Hillary the woman, she too gets to my heart. Barak’s idealism speaks to my own hopes for our country. Hillary’s can-do experience and enthusiasm inspires confidence. Both are brilliant. Both want what is best for America: Barak, the orator and visionary—Hillary, the experienced worker-bee who hits the ground running.
Without question, either Obama or Clinton can beat the opposite nominee. Obama because he’s probably without much baggage; Clinton because we know the baggage ad nauseam, and any repetition of that crap will be quickly buried in the compost heap by the people who’ve already had enough of it. Thirdly, no matter what they say or do, the other side has nothing to show for themselves but failed policies A-Z.
In one of the debates Hillary noted that being president is a lonely job. Clearly, the voter booth is a lonely moment for every citizen. I’ve voted in every election since JFK. This is the first time I’ve been on the fence because the choice is so wonderfully hard. I suspect I will do what everyone else does in the quiet of those few moments: Drop the he-said-she saids; forget the media noise and Party spin miesters, let my head clear and vote my gut feelings. Whomever we choose will be destiny’s child to give the Constitution back to the people, and give the people their rightful place in a free democracy once again. Either way folks, we can’t lose.
-
Yet Again...Delusional
We ARE awake out here. The statement stands: Michele Obama has more class in her little pinkie...
HRC has proven she has no class the way she mudslings at Obama, then hides behind Bubba, protests that people are huring her feelings and, when looking at defeat, starts crying.
She attacked and tried to destroy the women Bubba accosted rather than deal with his sickness. Real class, baby.
When things don't go her way she takes no responsibility for her actions, blaming everything on other people or a vast right wing conspiracy. Real class.
When asked a question, she parses words and never really answers the question. If you listen closely, you'll hear her not answer directly.
Clintons equal NO CLASS.
We don't have to worry about Mrs. Obama disrespecting the Oval Office - and she won't be dealing with stained blue dresses.
Bubba roaming arund in the White House with nothing to do - still the scariest visual out there.
MRs. Obama has enough class to not mention Hillary's name so as not to sound dirty. Hillary was so nice to Obama at the last debate but the next day was tearing up Obama and slinging mud. HRC can't be trusted. No class.
-
VOTE FOR EDWARDS!!!
In case anyone reads this before voting...
The following was posted yesterday in a blog in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, a "liberal" weekly newspaper covering the San Francisco Bay area. I urge you to read it before voting: you DO have options other than voting for Clinton or Obama and push the Democratic Party candidates to adopt more progressive positions, something that will become even more important in the coming months if Obama and Clinton remain neck-and-neck and we head into a brokered convention.
A vote for Edwards
By Christopher Cook, former editor,San Francisco Bay Guardian
SFBG.com, Politics blog, posted February 04, 2008 07:12
Dear Friends, Please pardon this last-minute note on the elections, I hope you can take a quick glance before heading to the polls.
Politics is about negotiation, leverage, power and ideas, among other things. In my estimation, both Obama and Clinton have failed to exhibit a strong consistent commitment to progressive ideas--and thus need to be pressured on this front, and held as accountable as possible to progressive ideas such as universal healthcare, strong sturdy anti-war policies, and economic justice. Neither candidate (not even Obama, who has since voted for war payments) has been clear and consistent on the war and when/how to end it. Neither candidate has taken a strong clear stand on a universal healthcare plan that truly breaks the insurance industry's hold over America's healthcare system. To the extent that either has mentioned issues of poverty and workers' rights, and corporate greed/power, it has been by virtue of prodding by the Edwards candidacy. Both these candidates have consistently shown they are willing to sell out progressive causes in the name of power politics and centrism, or, in Obama's case, some vague appeal to moderates and Republicans.
This is not an anti-Obama or anti-Clinton appeal; rather, I encourage you to consider voting for Edwards tomorrow on the basis of representing progressive ideas in the electorate, and sending as many delegates his way as possible, in the hopes that he will be that much more empowered to exact some pledges for his endorsement of either candidate.
I believe progressive ideas win only when they are strongly represented, not when they are tucked in the back pocket and slipped in on the margins later, if at all. Politics is largely about the bargaining and wielding of power and ideas; you don't start the negotiation by bargaining away your ideals, you start with your ideals and work back as little as possible. It may seem that the pragmatic thing to do tomorrow is to support Obama or Clinton and rally the party toward a quick nomination of one or the other; but if we want progressive policies to be promoted by either of these two, they need to hear from us -- and tomorrow we can speak through our votes by telling both of them that they need to be more accountable to the progressive ideas promoted by Senator Edwards.
Ultimately Democrats will rally behind whoever takes the nomination -- but right now, in the primaries, this is an important time to impact not only who gains that nomination, but what they say they stand for, and to whom they are accountable. So I say let's bring a little pressure on these two and vote for Edwards tomorrow -- and as his pile of delegates continues to accrue, even at small levels, so will at least some small measure of pressure for more progressive policies in the party platform.
Thanks for listening. Happy voting!
http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2008/02/a_vote_for_edwards.html
NOTE: The San Francisco Bay Guardian endorsed Obama, but with this caveat:
Obama's life story is inspirational, and his speeches are the stuff of political legend. He can rouse a crowd and generate excitement like no presidential candidate has in many, many years. He has, almost single-handedly, caused thousands of young people to get involved for the first time in a major political campaign.
The cost of his soaring rhetoric is a disappointing lack of specific plans. It can be hard at times to tell exactly what Obama stands for, exactly how he plans to carry out his ambitious goals. His stump speeches are riddled with words like change and exhortations to a new approach to politics, but he doesn't talk much, for example, about how to address the gap between the rich and the poor, or how to tackle urban crime and poverty, or whether Israel should stop building settlements in the occupied territories.
In fact, our biggest problem with Obama is that he talks as if all the nation needs to do is come together in some sort of grand coalition of Democrats and Republicans, of "blue states and red states." But some of us have no interest in making common cause with the religious right or Dick Cheney or Halliburton or Don Fisher. There are forces and interests in the United States that need to be opposed, defeated, consigned to the dustbin of history, and for all of Obama's talk of unity, we worry that he lacks the interest in or ability to take on a tough, bloody fight against an entrenched political foe.