Letters to the Editor
-
@ tree hugger
"Sorry, the fact remains we are still here, we are not going away, and after reading many of these posts, I am certainly glad not to personally know many of you."
You want to talk about facts? Give me a break. Of course you are still here and knowing me or not isn't the point. Again this becomes a question of ME ME ME and "I" that Salon promotes despite its claim to be journalism.
You can hang around all you want. The problem is that to be taken seriously or organize a party you need to have a bit of critical thinking and rules. Help me out here in explaining Hilary's various criteria of determining who is the nominee. I was a late supporter of Obama, and it was because of this crazy BS.
-
sigmund5
I was a late supporter of Obama, and it was because of this crazy BS.
Same here. I hadn't supported either candidate until a few days ago. Hillary pushed me into the Obama camp. I didn't get there on my own.
-
I Hate to Interrupt the Lovefest Here...
...but how about I, the Resident Republican Scumbag Conservative Thinking Person, make an observation about the actual article? Then ya'll can go back to calling each other lying sacks of shit, etc.
The article was really quite interesting, well-written and, of course, factually accurate, as it should be, since the author was actually "in country" during the Robb-Wilder fiasco. It is a great story and all history is worth repeating -- endlessly in some cases -- as stories.
There is a problem, however, when we try to use a historical story to dictate or predict (in this case dictate would be the case) the present and/or future. The storytelling tradition is a precious and valued art in the south particularly (and I can say that since on top of all my other defects I am a southerner). The problem, as I have stated here at Salon repeatedly over the past months, is our obsession with the past as a guide to the future. That business about those who can't remember the past being cursed to repeat it (Santayana) is not the same as being cursed with repeating the past no matter how badly it works for us. To reconcile this apparent boilerplate philosophical statement one must peruse Jiddah Krishnamurti's "Freedom From the Known" and be familiar with the comment by Adrienne Rich that "False history gets made all day, any day, the truth of the new is never on the news."
What has happened is interesting, informative and, sometimes, useful. But what has not happened is the promise of that New Possibility Tillich spoke of, the ability to grow, change, evolve. Now what self-respecting Democrat does not believe in evolution? And how do we evolve without going where we have not gone before? Hell, if an old curmudgeon like me can buy a new day (and I do, every time I wake up to hear the birds singing and realize I'm still alive), why can't (mostly) younger, more flexible minds accept that there is something beyond "Hooray for our side"? (clue: that's from a Buffalo Springfield song, and those guys have moved on, grown and thrived musically). As another musical genius from that era, Captain Beefheart, put it, "Grow Fins!"
My point, and I really did have one, is that whether or not a protracted Democratic campaign will benefit the eventual nominee or not is far less important than what that nominee will do to John McCain (and just for the record: God save us from John McCain; I like him, but I'd sooner put my head in the oven than see him become President). I think one poster at least has made the case that McCain is so unpopular within his own party that it would take a deliberate blunder on the part of the Democratic nominee (and yes, I do believe we now know that will be Barack Obama) to lose to Mad John. But only by letting go of the stories which, as don Juan told Castaneda, are "only tales of power" and mean nothing when confronting the unknown, that new morning to which we all wake up each day -- with any luck at all.
-
So this is what it's about -- denying another woman a spot on the ticket?
I've always suspected that, contrary to the complaints, the issue isn't that there are NO other qualified Democratic female presidential candidates out there, but rather too many for Hillary Clinton's taste.
With all due respect, I think Claire McCaskill, Janet Napalitano, Sarah Palin, Christine Gregoire and Kathleen Sebelius saw this too.
We all know Sebelius is on the short list to be Obama's VP, she's easily on everyone's Top 5 List.
Hillary knows what I know, if Sebelius (who is by far the most competent politician in this country and a governor who has ran something) is Obama's VP that gives Sebelius not Clinton the best chance to nab the 2016 Democratic nomination and the presidency.
Heard Sebelius on Air America again today. That woman's a president. Period.
Add Gregoire, Napalitano and Palin, who are all excellent governors and Claire McCaskell (who's quickly becoming a t.v. star as anyone who watches CNN, MSNBC or any other network knows) and it's clear you easily have anywhere from 5 to 7 women who have a better shot, and more actual experience, than Hillary.
As always this is about Hillary Clinton and nothing else. I agree let her run as long as she wants.
She can come to Kathleen Sebelius' inaguration in 2016.
-
Damaged goods
Clinton's problem is that she, more than once, promoted John McCain over her fellow Democrat. She has also run a horrible campaign in every way. She has lost alot of credibility in the Party. Many of these "workingclass white" voters would most likey flip to John McCain no matter which Democrat ended up the nominee. I get the sence the Democrats are pretty fed up with her.
Obama's strategy of going straight to general election mode doesn't bode well for Hillary Clinton. He may very well chose a Wes Clark as his VP. He won't do it to kiss her ass, though. If its beneficial to him, that will be the reason.
Hillary clinton is refusing to drop out because once she's done, she's off the big stage. This was her only and last chance.