Letters to the Editor
-
We Can Only hope
That Obama's speech yestesrday will inspire other politicians to be more honest, less careful. I don't think that's going to happen - but I appreciate your wishing that for Clinton - even though you are a supporter of her's. I think she voted for the war like everyone else - it was the expedient thing to do and everyone thought it would be a win-win - out quickly, rah rah for America. You and I and others were not in the minority - I've read estimates of up to 30% of the population thought the war was a bad idea - which is several million people (never sure how those % are arrived at). Wasn't exactly rocket science - Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, Al Quaeda and little power because of the last war. Cheney said so himself after the first Gulf War (re: Why not to finish the job). I don't think Senator Clinton has learned Obama's lesson yet and will continue trying to appease both sides - which I think is why she hasn't emphatically discussed her vote on the war and the results of same. Unfortunately, by aligning herself with McCain against Obama during the primaries a couple of weeks ago, I think she's lost the independent vote in the general election should she be the candidate since McCain will no doubt trump her on national security But hope remains eternal. I think an honest, laundry cleansing speech by Clinton would be what she needs to boost her over the top. As for Mark Penn - he could ultimately be Clinton's Rev. Wright, given his ties to Blackwater et al. One has to wonder if he isn't conflicted working for a Democrat who logically would be against most of the clients Penn represents. . . subject for another article right? Anyway thanks for making us (or at least me) think -- it's the people who don't have an opinion I really worry about!
-
@The Notorious W.E.S. (2012)
In 2012 Hillary could contest the nomination, and make Obama go through what George H.W. Bush went through in 1992.
That did his party so much good, I can't imagine why Bill Clinton ran unopposed in 1996.
I won't be surprised if Senator Clinton runs again 2012 (provided she holds onto her seat in the Senate) even if the Democrats hold the Whitehouse already.
That you aknowledge this fact tells me a great deal about you and what you think Senator Clinton is capable of.
Senator Clinton will happily destroy the party if she thinks there is a shot at her own agrandizment in the process.
It's time people start making this point everytime they mention Senator Clinton.
-
That's A Winner
The ten millionth Hillary is destroying the party. You da man.
-
On the issues of sexism
I disagree wit your analysis that sexism has played a part in this campaign. If it has it is only because Hillary is using the gender card and and her female supporters are the ones who have inserted "gender" into this race.
I look forward to the day when we can take the phrase "first" out of every discussion on politics, business, academics.
There are many women who have been in the senate much longer than Hillary and are more qualified to be president. Hillary is getting all the attention, not because she is the "first " woman, or she is qualified. She is getting the attention because he last name is "Clinton".
-
@The Notorious W.E.S. ( Am I Da Man?)
Your response is to real criticism of your candidate is to dismiss it lightly as if Senator Clinton's Humphryesque behavior does not carry with it the possibility of electing John McCain the President of the United States, is very revealing.
It suggests that you have no real response, no explaination as to why the activities of Senator Clinton and her Surrogates does not carry with it the seeds of McCain's possible victory.
If you can show me how having a fellow candidate tear down the eventual nominee does not help the opposition party, I am happy to hear it.
But you'd likely rather crack wise, and dismiss criticism, since you know as well as I do that Senator Clinton's actions are detrimental to the Party.
-
east coast vs. west coast
When 911 happened I was living in Southern California. I remember being shocked and horrified by the images on tv. It was truly horrific to watch. However within a week or two it began to fade in my mind and I became more concerned that my electric bill just tripled because of Enron.
Hillary Clinton however was representing the people of NY and they were: scared, frustrated, and angry. So when President Bush presented evidence (via Colin Powell) and a proposal to go after those responsible for the attack on NYC of course she voted yes, I would have to. However President Bush lied to Congress, he lied to America, and he lied to Hillary Clinton. Instead of going after Bin Laden, Bush attacked Iraq.
Now some Democrats try to blame Hillary for Bush's betrayal.
Or expect her to apologize for Bush's betrayal.
Hillary did nothing wrong with her vote for the people of NY and has nothing to apologize for.
I for one hope she never does.
-
My emails 5 years ago to my Representatives...
Schumer, Clinton and Steve Israel started, "Shame, Shame, Shame, Shame, Shame on you...." It went on to tell why their vote was one of the worst in the history of the United States (I referenced the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and the votes to impeach or convict Bill Clinton).
I held my nose and voted for John Kerry in 2004 because of whom he was running against (I've always called it 'dimwit the deserter' but I just read a post with a much better moniker: 'smirky').
I hope I don't ever have to vote for anyone who voted for this miserable war who has not groveled and said how sorry they were for their boneheaded and unconscionable ballot.
-
Smurf
Get this straight...........If Obama loes the general it's because HE was an inadequate candidate.
-
Thank you, Joan
This is the kind of thing I have been waiting for you to do. I appreciate it, and I thank you.
Surprisingly, it wasn't the Iraq vote that lost me as a Clinton supporter. I know why she did it, I think it was wrong, but I understand the decision. I can even almost comprehend the steadfast refusal to admit it was a mistake, though I believe that would be a couragous rather than cowardly act.
No, it was the Iran vote last fall. Having not learned from her mistake in authorizing President Bush to use force in the Middle East, she authorized him to do it again! Incredible. THAT's the moment I had to wash my hands of Senator Clinton. Mistakes are inevitable. But not learning from them? That's speaks of a lack of wisdom.
Sadly, though he had spoken against it, Senator Obama was not present and did not vote. I'll note that the vote was unscheduled, brought suddenly to the floor in the hope that some Senators would not make it there in time. But that's not an excuse, not really. As I've said about Senator Clinton missing the FISA vote - you should do the job you have before you get the job you want. I could wish both would take their senatorial duties a little more seriously, even as they run for the highest office in the land.
Again, Joan, thank you for this piece. Two in two days - can we expect to hear from you more regularly?