Letters to the Editor
-
@doloresflower
Your focus on Hillary at the top no matter what betrays a contempt for Obama as a candidate who has earned the right to the top of the ticket through his support of voters across the US in this campaign. You are trying to cement Hillary's place on the top of the ticket while she is struggling just to break even with him in the delegates headed for the convention.
Your assumptions are what make the "dream ticket" less dreamy for those of us who support Barack for President.
How wrong you are. I waited 4.5 hours in the cold just to caucus for Obama in Houston on March 4. Obama is my personal preference.
But we have to face facts. We need a solution that will unite the party and win in November because we are most likely going to be going to the convention deadlocked, with no rules to cover the situation.
It's unity or defeat. Does anyone want a repeat of 1968 or 1980?
-
JackHughes
Now that Hillary Clinton is so close to McCain, wouldn't we still have Bush back in the White House? Am I the only one who is mad as hell that Hillary now says McCain is better than Obama?
-
Obama at top ticket will unite the party ..
Hillary must have the capacity to understand this reality given the amount of new voters Obama has brought to the party..
Yet I doubt if Hillary has the ability to accept sacrifice as a privledge white woman..
-
Hillary dis MLK and Now Obama with her backward statement about McCain..
Hillary will not compromise, she thinks she is entitled and becuase she is a Clinton Black voters owe her...
-
Obamateur?
As a Obama supporter, my primary concern is how we quantify a candidate's experience. Simply put, political experience is not something that begins in Washington. Obama served the Illinois State Senate from January 8, 1997 to November 4, 2004. When you couple that term with his current term in the U.S. Senate, which started January 5, 2005, Obama has served over 10 years in ELECTED office. On the otherhand, you have Clinton, who started her U.S. Senate term January 3, 2001. So far, Clinton has little over 7+ years serving in an ELECTED office compared to Obama's 10+. This is a cold hard fact that for whatever reason gets very little press.
Granted, no reference was made to Clinton's years as First Lady, because the country does not elect First Spouses. In fact, if you had to compare the First Spouse to other non-elected positions in Washington, even high level appointments go through some sort of confirmation process. Simply put, Clinton has spent 20 years of her political career in a position that was hers by default (12 years as First Lady of Arkansas and 8 years as First Lady of the United States). Being First Spouse is an entitlement due to being married to a Governor or President. There are no elections or Senate confirmation hearings to be First Spouse
Of the 16 women now serving in the U.S. Senate, only 4 of them reached the U.S. Senate without any prior ELECTED experience in the House of Representatives or their respective state legislatures. 3 of the 4 served in some sort of politically appointed position. HRC is the only one of the 16 that has neither prior ELECTED office nor politically appointed experience. In fact, the vast majority of U.S. Senators have had some prior stint in ELECTABLE office before being put in a position as powerful as U.S. Senator. Chuck Schumer, the other Senator from New York, served 18 years in the House of Representatives prior to starting in the U.S. Senate in 1999.
As a Obama supporter, I am highly aware of these facts when leveling criticism of Clinton. From a feminist perspective, it is highly insulting to suggest that she is the most qualified woman to potentially hold the office of President. The current Madame Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has spent more time in Washington than either Hillary or Bill. True, the Speaker hails from a powerful political family, but that doesn't make her much different from her male counterparts. At least the Speaker did not have to marry into power. Afterall, that has been the traditional way in which women have had to climb the political ranks since the dawn of government, and in 2008 it is both shameful and offensive that such a traditional and subservient ascent to power is being trumpeted as experience worth recognizing. To all the women that climbed the ranks of politicial power without riding on the coattails of their male significant other, Clinton's candidacy is a step back for everything they have fought for. What are we teaching young women? If you marry well, then you too can become Senator or President? For every Hillary Clinton, there is a Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Dole. True Bob Dole was Senator, but Barbara had her own career while he had his. She was not dithering around in a title created by her spouse, waiting for her turn.
Does anyone really think that anybody else could buy a home in New York, after not living there before, and then be elected Senator of one the nations most powerful states a year and two months later had their spouse not been a popular President? It is dubious at best that anyone else could accomplish such a feat without some sort of significant Presidential backing. There were many qualified, female, (real) New York politicians that stepped aside so Hillary could run for Senate. They only agreed to do such because of Bill Clinton's power within the Democratic party.
For all his flaws, Obama is his own person, and nobody had given him anything. Perhaps it is the years spent as a community organizer, or the decade of experience that he has representing other people by their consent and backing.
These campaigns have beeen the biggest things that either Clinton or Obama has ever run. Obama has planned for and has been prepared to run a long campaign. Clinton expected everything to be wrapped up by Super Tuesday. For the candidate that claims to be ready to be President on "Day One", why was she not ready to face such a challenge from Obama on Day One? A candidate is not ready simply because they want it, they are ready because they are prepared.