Letters to the Editor
-
@Amerigo
Oh, and another thing. All this about us Obama supporters saying we will not vote for Hillary in the general. Has no one ever heard of SPIN. The whole point of writing letters here to Salon is to try to win thousands of readers over to our side. We want the floating voters in our camp, so we scare them into thinking Hilary will have no chance if cut loose alone in the shark infested waters of the general election without a life preserver. In the unlikely event of our man not being on the ticket, we will have to decide when the time comes which is the most evil of two evils. -- Amerigo
The so called spin in NOT FOR THE CANDIDATE. Obama should be leaving the blackmail to his supports, and they don't even have to do that because the media is taking care of it for them.
Scaring floating voters into voting for your candidate is a Rovian strategy, and I expected more from Obama. It is the reason I voted for him, and I am beginning to regret that I didn't vote for my cat!
-
Foreign policy experience?
Ummm... exactly WHAT foreign policy experience does HRC have? One cannot count drop-ins as first lady as substantive experience, thats just international campaigning. Did she cut some great deals for WalMart in China as a corporate attorney? Did she sell some land in Arkansas to Dubai? Did she chair a committee on foreign relations in the senate, or negotiate trade deals? Spend a year abroad in college like Bill?
Am I missing something here? Seriously... I can't think of any meaningful or noteworthy accomplishments on that front.
Her single biggest public cause, healthcare, was a trainwreck, where she was the engineer. The collapse was entirely caused by her process and personality. By excluding parties, and coming up with a back-room, Democrats-Only bill, she drove away natural allies. After Bill removed her from virtually all public policy discussions, she retreated to campaigning as the administrations Victim In Chief, spreading the paranoia meme. She was very good at that, and it's the only reason she wasn't blown out on Tuesday.
It's worth noting her approach to governance is certainly workable. Dick Cheney's applied her techniques to the formulation of energy policy, and war profiteering with great success. Yet while you can call it pragmatic, hard-nosed, machiavellian, or brilliant, you can't honestly call it change (hasn't stopped Hillary crowd from doing just that since Iowa).
If you really believe change is impossible, and it's all variations on the same game we've been playing since Pappy Bush's days, Hillary is indeed a valid choice, and arguably the best candidate to take the lead in the next battles of the culture war.
OTOH if you actually hope to change the game, and it's ugly rules, Hillary's a very weak choice, by definition. The fact that she has ovaries does not mean her policies and tactics vary from the norm. While a change in gender may indeed be long overdue and a welcome improvement over Junior Bush, this particular candidate looks to the 90s (and to some extent the 60s) for her models. This misses a number of deep, fundamental changes, not just in our country but in the human condition (we live in the first time since agriculture when wealth was created virtually from thin air, so zero-sum games and rules are collapsing as wealth is limited by our ideas as opposed to our natural resources).
We have a narrow window to actually force through big, structural change. If you believe it's only possible the old fashioned way, following in the combative footsteps of Bill and the Bushes, then Hillary makes sense for you, and I wish you well. I confess to hoping for the kind of big, generational changes that come in times like these, so I naturally look to the candidate that solves some of our biggest problems by virtue of his person (A President Obama does more to win the war on terror than any surge or invasion so far), and runs on a real record of working with people who think differently to get things done for the people. Hillary really lacks that record... she's always been a figure of partisan division, and her current campaign continues in that mode. Witness Bill's outbursts on her behalf, or the shameless Rezko reference in the debate - silly coming from the candidate of Chu, already been convicted for actual political activities.
-
Can someone recommend to MSNBC something
I've already recommended this in an email to MSNBC, but of course, they won't do anything, but why not have Salon have something like an hour, called Salon.com on MSNBC? They could put on some of their talent, to discuss substantially issues (along with maybe some NPR and New republic people and maybe Nation people).
Something has to be done to improve their programming. The male hosts, one after another, from Scarborough on has to be changed.
-
Re: Thanks for the Response on Illinois and California
Joan: Thanks for your response to my (defensive) post about Illinois. I think my frustration stems more from the fact that race, gender and ethnicity in this election is being given much more attention than it deserves. The real story in this election is the incredible turnout on the Democratic side, and the fact that the Democrats have two extremely attractive candidates. As an Obama supporter, I keep reminding myself that I would certainly be supporting Hillary if he were not running, and will support her if she is the nominee. Neither candidate has done anything other than engage in tough campaigning
Also, as I was writing my first post, I had this little nagging thought in my head: Didn't she used to live in Chicago? I should have listened to that voice.
-
To Diane B - Thank you!
Thank you so very much for the precious $50 you sent to Hillary's campaign. That is not a small amount, and every sum is much appreciated by Hill, for sure.
It's now a campaign to raise $3 million in 72 hours, so all Hillary supporters (and former Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel supporters leaning towards her, and even some Obama supporters reconsidering their choice) should all help out in this fundraising campaign.