Letters to the Editor
-
Enough of this lineage hawking, for heavenssake!!!
For a country that goes to war to preserve democracy, is the harbinger of democracy elsewhere, we Americans have become slavishly dependent upon the leadership of certain families. The Kennedys, who for the longest time have been the most progressive, personally sacrificing group of people, committed to serving the less fortunate among us, have become circus sideshows. I fully expect to wake up one morning and read that Sen. Teddy’s toenail has grown 4 feet and he is now in the Guinness Book of Records – Ms. Shriver did a hand-to-hand fight with her venerable husband, and won, so everyone is congratulating her. Stuff like that. This unseemly battle for supremacy within the Democratic Party between Teddy Kennedy and his fawning partisans, versus Bill Clinton and his growing authority, is not only unseemly, it is disgusting. What is Teddy Kennedy trying to prove? That he can cut any number of Bill Clintons and other Hillbillies down to size? He uses Robert F. Kennedy’s memory in siding with Obama, and when the late Mr. Kennedy's children react negatively, he gets his former sister-in-law, best known for her alcoholism and the Connecticut contretemps of her brother’s family, to counteract her own children? How very big of the Kennedys and how classy!
The Democratic Party has always been identified with “Universal Healthcare” coverage – Teddy Kennedy, himself, was the foremost authority on the subject. Today, Hillary Clinton’s is the only viable Universal Medical Coverage, yet there he is, lionizing Obama. You don’t have to listen to me. Read Krugman’s analysis of the healthcare issue in Sunday’s New York Times; he unequivocally supports Ms. Clinton’s as the more authentic plan. Yet, Obama runs an ad promising “universal healthcare”, an out and out lie. So, where is that vaunted character of Mr. Obama’s – why nonexistent when it matters?
If people sat and listened to Obama, and put him through the fact-check system, I daresay, not one person would vote for him. Let’s assume he is right when he told the editorial board of the Reno Gazette Journal, that he was admiring of President Reagan, because President Reagan was able to verbally appeal to all classes and political parties, and was such a “transformational leader”, that he could make people vote against their own interests. So, we are to understand that Mr. Obama wishes to be the new Pied Piper, and with his glorious exhortations, sweep us all into the ocean to die? How exactly is that a beneficial thing for us little folk? It is not enough that our political leaders continuously and repeatedly betray us – he wishes to do this at a grander scale, and without having to listen to our recriminations? That’s just great.
As for Cesar Chavez’s granddaughter – she is bound to be a legal resident/citizen of the country. What Gov. Spitzer was trying to do by issuing Driver’s licenses may have been good for automobile insurance costs and responsibility issues, it was going to have horrendous consequences for the people who got them. The license would contain the information that the bearer was “not in valid immigration status”; thereby allowing them to be made “scapegoats” by whichever administration was most virulently anti-immigrant/anti-Hispanic! Can you imagine these people going down south, where “driving while Hispanic” is a crime, big enough for you to get stopped and searched. Oh, the cops can’t legally do it, but do you suppose with a license stating your status, you would have the nerve to cite legal issues? Ask LaRaza, they can tell you a million stories.
Why can’t we just sweep out all the pedigreed politicians and be done with them? They bring nothing but discord and dissonance. If Obama had been as “wonkish” as they say Ms. Clinton is, he would have known why giving “illegal/undocumented” people driver’s licenses would have been equivalent to tacking a large bull’s eye on their chests, and a huge sign saying “shoot me” on their backs. His rhetoric was awesome – we could all jump up and start clapping, exactly the same way that Teddy Kennedy’s point-counterpoint hitting at Hillary Clinton evoked. The pity is that while Hillary Clinton studied the issues, made the plans, Obama needs to have his hand held and someone does his reading for him. I don’t know that he needs have himself “oiled and seasoned” as he sarcastically puts it – it would be nice if he actually knew something beyond the oratory.
-
Okay, the way I see it:
Obama was against the war in the first place, and even though he has voted to continue funding it, hasn't really changed his rhetoric in that regard.
Him continuing to fund it, is a concern but can be excused by the idea that if you have to do something you don't want to, you may as well do it properly.
Hillary was in favour of the war in the first place, and though her rhetoric has been toned down somewhat, has demonstrated that she is still in favour of more of them (Her Iran vote.)
Obama's stance on gaming is milder and at least more sensible than Hillary's - though he evidently isn't very familliar with the issue, otherwise he would have shared Edwards' view of the ESRB.
http://kotaku.com/gaming/politics/presidential-candidates-talk-video-game-censorship-331853.php?mail2=true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_mod#Federal_and_legal_action
Note: The basic argument over Grand Theft Auto, was that this game did not do enough to warn people that it was not suitable for children. Because with a name like Grand Theft Auto, we all know that this is basically wholesome children's fair.
Obama has spoken out against group-guilt in the form of reparations - even though this is a unpopular decision of his this shows a lot of character. As an individualist, this appeals to me, due to the fact that I reject group politics.
Hillary Clinton's supporters at least, seem to be deeply invested in group politics, calling women who vote for the other candidate traitors to their gender. Needless to say, these victims of such a betrayal bear their crosses nobly while seeking lawns to burn them on. (IE: Contrasted with the KKK's treatment of white people who supported racial equality? Same message, different choir.)
Hillary's foreign policy is on its surface, more satisfying than Obama's. She follows the ideology of being nasty to your enemies so that they can stop buying your goods and listening to you when you ask them to stop killing people. (calling Putin soulless for example.)
Obama is at least, reasonably willing to be civil.