Letters to the Editor
-
Clinton's ability to fight back
You are so right. I am furious with the Democrats lack of willingness/ability to fight the Republicans and not each other. The Clinton's know how to do that. The media, especially Russert and Mathews, are nothing but water carriers for the Republicans, and have been since the 1980's, and so can't recognize the Democratic base's fury with the lot of them and our desire to train our guns on the real enemies. I say go after them and leave each other alone. I won't caucus for any Democrat who attacks another Democrat instead of promoting his/her own policy strengths (comparisons are okay)and defending each other against the media and the Republicans.
Linda Schuppener
-
Finally
Finally, a rational take on Clinton. She may not be my favorite person in the world or even my favorite candidate, but I hate how she has been demonized in the past week or so, especially by people who seem to think that Obama is some kind of religious savior. He's just an inexperienced candidate with no real platform and no strategy for implementing the bipartisan cooperation he's so fond of talking about. People talk about Clinton's voting record... well, I doubt much that Obama's would be any different, were he actually around to cast his votes occasionally (and the only reason he didn't vote in favor of war in Iraq like most of the rest of Congress is because he wasn't in office yet).
Clinton's not perfect, no. Neither are the rest of them. But let's at least attempt to play fair when discussing them.
-
Joan Walsh column
I'm not an angry Democrat outraged by the attempt to impeach her husband. I thought Bill was a good president. I just don't think this country needs or deserves a potential 16 year heriditary family monarchy (Bush.Clinton). I'm a 72 year old male, and I'm goddam tired of the Boomers running this country since the early '70's. I smoked dope as good as anyone else, I demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, I've been on the side of all the liberal social upheavals of the last 35 years. I just think now is the time to let go of all the acrimony and divisiness of the past and let a new generation take the helm. The hell with Hillary, McCain, Rudy, Edwards, Richardson, Thompson, and all the rest. Let's see if this new generation can do better. We've screwed it up pretty well all by ourselves.
-
Hillary Clintons Race to Lose!?
I have to say I totally disagree that this race is Hillary's to lose. I am assuming that is based off of all of this "relevant" polling data that is floating around and the MSM hype that both loves and hates her. If not by all means correct me until then I would say its still anyones race until after the first primary voters vote and maybe not even then depending on how things fall out cast their votes.
-
Direct Engagement
Sen. Clinton would be better served if she set aside her wary, defensive strategy and replaced it with--here's a bold idea--speaking directly to the rest of us. Whether it's her vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment or her straddle on immigration/licenses, her equivocations only weaken her. She should take a position, hold to it and defend it. Let her speak over the talking heads; the rest of us will hear it.
In short, enough with the how-will-this-be-reported and who-might-I-offend stuff. Russert, Matthews, et.al.--there's a larger world out there and it's responsive to direct engagement. Notice what it's done for Ron Paul.
-
Experience
One thing that stands out in Joan Walsh's nicely-expressed summary of the Democratic primary race is the extent to which the candidates' own level of national campaign experience is still such a huge factor.
Clinton has been through 2 presidential campaigns already, and it shows. Edwards isn't quite the veteran she is but he still seems to know how to manage his campaign, stay on message, take opportunities when he can, and so on.
The others? Not so much. Obama is doing extraordinarily well for someone with his lack of experience but as Walsh implies his early sprint appears to be petering out as the campaign becomes more of an endurance contest — not just in the traditional budgetary sense, where of course Obama excels, but in the sense of the ability to stay moving day after day and not tire, stumble, and lose focus.
None of that is to say that the candidate who runs the best campaign is the best for the party, or the country. But experience provides a definite edge that all the money an exuberance can't make up for, and that principle is what's on stark display right now.
-
Coronation question
One thing you say is:
"He or she can't keep exceeding expectations when expectations get their highest. Also, it's human (and media) nature: Nobody wants a coronation."
I'm wondering about this statement, does this mean that the media basically will start blasting Clinton just to make things interesting? What if Clinton is simply the best candidate? Does this even matter to the media? What the "nobody wants a coronation" mentality could lead to is a sustained attack on Clinton by the media(not that they need an excuse in Clinton's case) if she continues to lead and eventually gets the Dem nomination.
-
The real race or the MSM race?
I think its important to note that without the MSM narrative dictating how the race should be according to their expectations, the race would probably be down to Kucinich v. Ron Paul.
That being said, Clinton is the front runner, thats why she draws the heat. If you see more to it than that, its probably your own issues. However like another poster said the strongest argument for me against Clinton is just the idea of no Clintons or Bushes domintating American politics seems like sweet release from the insanity.
-
Why is there a "race" yet
When not a single vote has been cast? When did the media and the voting public in America come to blithely accept the results of polls over the results of elections as the primary determinant of who people want in office?