Letters to the Editor
-
McCain is the only possibly rational Republican.
He is pro Iraq war, and he is open to invading Iran and Lord knows how many other countries. But he is the only Republican in the whole bunch who might, conceivably, wake up and change his mind. Let us hope this is moot. Let us hope a Democrat wins.
-
What a waste
The endorsement was entirely devoid of anything substantial to indicate why it is that Clinton would be best suited to take the presidency. Experience? Really? Evidence of this? Follow that with something or other about opening up, yada yada, and then you get to the best part: She has the best chance for the Democratic party to reclaim presidency. I, uh, doubt that.
If she gets the nomination, this long-time Democrat votes Independent or Republican. Clintons have already done a fantastic job of splitting the party - we don't need another president who'll do the same for the entire country for another four years (at the least).
-
er
How is Clinton the one responsible for splitting the party?
No Clinton supporter has threatened to bat for the other team if Obama is nominated (Unlike some others, we are not stupid enough to hand this country over to the likes of McCain or Giuliani just because our candidate didn't get picked). But a shit-ton of Obama supporters are doing that. So, really, who is more likely to split the party? Who exactly is being more divisive?
The only people Obama has united are affluent, over-educated young people. You'll notice that the people who are being hit hardest by our current economic recession are voting for Hillary.
-
Good luck with that
we don't need another president who'll do the same for the entire country for another four years (at the least).
Well, if you'd prefer to continue the war in Iraq endlessly, more violations of our constitutional rights, more tax cuts for the rich while the rest of us end up living in cardboard boxes - the ones who don't die for being unable to pay for health care - and continued corporate corruption while KBR and Halliburton continue to gobble up most of your tax dollars and bridges and highways crumble and collapse - you'll be making the right choice.
Me, I'd rather have a president who is divisive for the right reasons and the right issues than one who's going to roll over for the Republicans in the name of "post-partisanship."
-
Time to bite the lemon
I am no fan of Hillary who recently has morphed into the twoheaded campaign monster Billary. She is obviously very smart, but she holds her cards a little to close to her chest for my taste and she needs to restrain hubby and do her own talking 100 %. He has shown his true colors these past few weeks. And he nods off listening to a speech on MLK Day - ouch.
While Obama does seem fresh and geniune compared to her (who wouldn't?) the country cannot afford the risk of Obama losing were he to be the Dem. candidate in November. I agree with the NYT: old does beat new. It bugs me to no end, especially because I dread the thought of having to listen to and read the words "President Clinton" for 4-8 years. It will feel like going back in time and that usually doesn't work out - there's a very good reason we don't drive in reverse down the road. The same should go for politics but alas it looks like we may be going back to the future and Billary.
The NYT editorial hits it on the nail whether we like it or not. Democrats will have bite the lemon and try and smile at the same time: looks like it's Billary (against McCain of course, he is clearly the lesser of evils. And as for the description of "Mayor 9/11": it was delicious and spot on.
So there it is: Hillary for President (with Edwards or Obama as VP.)
-
First Kristol and now Hillary...
One more reason not to read the Times...don't worry -- of COURSE -- I'll vote for Hillary in the General Election.
But I won't start reading the Times on a regular basis again for quite a while -- if ever. It isn't that I don't agree with Kristol -- it is that he is willfully ignorant about many important issue I care about.
-
Nominating Hillary = President John McCain
How can anyone think Hillary has a better chance of winning than Obama? Is there any living person out there that didn't vote for John Kerry and Al Gore that would vote for Hillary Clinton?
-
RE: joshhabb
Yes, there are many voters who would vote for Hillary who didn't vote for Gore and Kerry. You have to remember that the economy is weaker than it was in 2000 or 2004 and the incumbent, a Republican, is very unpopular for other reasons. Not to mention that Gore, as liked as he is now, was an absolutely terrible campaigner and that Kerry wasn't much better. McCain versus Hillary would probably be the Republicans' most favorable match-up, but when you consider that Iraq's so unpopular and McCain's stated position on that is that he'd like to stay there for a hundred years, I just don't see how, sans some incredible missteps on Hillary's part, he wins. The Democratic primary will, in all likelihood, determine who's the next President.
-
Don't see the big deal
Hillary has experience and a firm grasp of the issues, and unlike the case with her main opponent, I know where she stands. Her opponent isn't even runing on the issues, but on personality. That's image, not substance, and it's like building a house on sand.
If you want to change things, you have to know how they work, and that knowledge comes in part from experience. Electing leaders with knowledge and experience is not tantamount to doing the same old thing.
I have to say, I really don't understand the controversy over Bill Clinton on the campaign trail. He has every right to campaign for Hillary and to challenge the assertions of her opponents. They're just angry because he's effective. This primary season has been very mild, compared to what I have seen in the past.
I like Bill, and I wish he and Hillary would campaign in my city.