Letters to the Editor
-
A proud history
I might be wrong, but I seem to recall the New York Times endorsed BOTH Gore and Bush in the general election of 2000, in an editorial called "Two Good Men."
And did anyone really expect the Times wouldn't endorse a New York Senator, especially one who supported the same idiotic war their reporters spent a year beating the drums for?
-
NYT; Plays the RACE CARD: Hillary more Qualified than Obama..
never mind that Hillary has never had any experience in the role of a president before ...apparently NYT has come to the conclusion a white privledged female who dismissed MLK.. piggybacked on the coattails of her husband, played the role of suffering wife during a perverted sexual affair none of this is revelant ..
All that matters is another White American Insitution has annoited yet another white person as more qualified than a one drop rule brother...
Some things never change with white folks...
-
Little Rome
It seems that the Clinton campaign has really done a good job of running "Experience" through the media wheel-well. Of course, if the Times and voters are so worried about Experience in these Dangerous Times, then it seems the best solution is to get rid of term limits and just install a King (or Queen, no need to be sexist). Who would have more and better experience than a person who has been in power for a few decades? And if you look at the current trend, we can just keep the same family(ies) in office permanently. If the Clintons play it right, Chelsea should be just old enough to run for President, er, I mean crowned as President. And then they can just appoint a successor, ad infinitum...hey! Just like Rome! Awesome!
All sarcasm aside, Bush has had some pretty experienced people surrounding him over the last eight years (Karl Rove, anyone?). I don't think we need more emphasis on experience, but on community and collaboration, perhaps even hope. Not that I endorse Obama or anyone else, but maybe the media machine can step back and work to help the situation, not endorse someone based upon a false principal...
Oh, what am I saying? The King Is Dead! Long Live The Queen!
-
That's fair
I suppose I read a little more into that than was there: "She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House."
I think, though, it could be taken the way I did: If the Democrats are trying to regain the White House, shouldn't the "best choice" be the one with the best chances of not dividing the electorate but joining it? I don't know what will happen in November, but my guess is that a Clinton nomination would lose us the White House, and I think it'd be with good reason. I'm a Democrat, and I can't , as of now, reward the Clintons with my vote.
It is a tough decision for me to make, as someone pointed out, when the other side may let those who are suffering most continue to suffer, and suffer worse still. I am still weighing that and will continue to after primaries are over. I would need serious convincing to vote against my conscience and better judgment.
And I still don't see the strength in the NYT endorsement. But I guess if I hadn't supported her before, it'll take more than a couple hundred words to get me to.
-
NYT gets Rudy Spot on
Which is frankly amazing considering the record of the ``paper of record''
-
experience et.al
I hope a lot more thought goes into people's votes than seems to go into these posts. You really want to equate being First Lady to the President and that experience to your husband coming home at night to talk about his work over the dinner table or to you attending a PTA meeting or two? First, if you want to equate them, you'd have to have an actual office in your husband's building or your wife's school. Then, of course, you'd have to be manager of a large working group working on policy at your husband's office or your wife's school. And, of course, you'd have to go on business trips with your husband and alone to represent your husband. And let's not even start the comparison between experience relevant to a President between a U.S. senator and a state senator. And the list of other reasons why those comparisons are so facile, so shallow, goes on. Does she have more experience than Barak in what it means to be a President? Of course she does and to argue otherwise is just inane. One can make an argument that sort of experience doesn't matter, but please, let's not get silly here and argue he has equivalent experience. He doesn't. He has different experience, he may have "better" experience
As for can she take more votes than Gore? Well, first, Gore had the right number of votes. She just needs them in different areas. And second, the situation of the country is far from the same.
As for Obama supporters threatening to take their votes home and sulk (and I've never seen Hillary supporters saying that)--you'd think they would have learned from the Nader voters. If you honestly think they're be no difference between having a democratic President and a Republican one, just look at the past eight years and look ahead to the next 30-40 years while his supreme court nominees put out decision after decision. If you really think they would be no difference, don't tell me you're a "democrat"--what the definition then? If you really think that, I think it's a pretty simplistic and shallow view. On the other hand, if you do think having a democrat as Pres. would be a difference, and you still choose to sit and sulk, then you deserve the country you get (though I'm not sure why the rest of us have to pay as well). My response is just to grow up--we don't always get things exactly how we want them all of the time. I think I was four or five when I learned that.
I say all this, by the way, as someone who may in fact vote for Obama and who has supported him financially from his announcement. But I've been disgusted with the sense of moral superiority, indignation, hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and childishness of many of his supporters.