Letters to the Editor
-
Hillary Clinton, women's issues, and Wal-Mart
@dcbrown:
"...Mom was a leader in bringing international attention to women's issues."
Pity Hillary Clinton wasn't so much of a leader in bringing Wal-Mart's attention to women's issues when she was on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart.
-
dcbrown
they debated EIGHTEEN TIMES!!! And they are going to debate twice more.
One of the most interesting/disturbing patterns of the past two campaigns is how quickly supporters of candidates start just repeating talking points, as if you aren't debating with real people. Its like everyone has turned into Chris Matthews or Peggy Noonan.
"Since Barack Obama is only willing to have 20 debates instead of 22, he is a sniveling coward who wants to hide from voters and not give them a chance to have a real voice." snark
I have an idea, instead of 4 more debates, why don't we force Hillary and Barack to campaign together! Everywhere he goes, she can show up, and that way she can make sure she reaches all the same people he does! That is the only way to make it "fair"
-
I know
you are not "the army."
It is not clear at all that Obama wants to restructure the army. He just says that he wants to increase the numbers to lessen the stress on those already in Iraq. Do you have more information? Is there anywhere where he is more specific?
Do we still need to increase the army even if we pull out of Iraq? Is there an estimate of how much it will cost?
-
-- Vox Veritas post re too many debates
I am not a member of Team Hillary, but I bet their position is that a series of debates will allow the candidates to talk about more specific issues in more depth as they related to specific areas. For example, a debate in Houston could address energy issues. Obama has not talked much about energy issues. It may be a way to recognize that the Presidency is not only about soundbites on the war. I think the real answer explaining Obama's hesitation is that Obama isn't schooled enough yet to debate on a wide gamut of issues. Camp Obama's prefers that we all just vote against Hillary because he equivocated on the war but she actually voted for the resolution.
In my ignorant estimation I do not see a vote for the resolution in the same light Obama has tried to cast it. Of course, my theory is not one that Hillary or any other politician could publically admit without effecting foreign policy in the long term. However, my supposition is that regardless of what the resolution said, I may have agreed to vote for it if it was confirmed by the President that it was necessary for negotiations in order to get more leverage in discussions by showing Iraq that the U.S. is serious. I really think that is what happened. I think that makes sense. Unfortunately, the renegade Cowboy President abused his power.
-
The strength of the army and deterrence
It hasn't escaped the attention of America's adversaries that US ground forces are stretched to the limit in the occupation of a third-rate country with no regular army. The Bush administration has managed, through massive incompetence, to damage the credibility of the US military. In a world where deterrence is the best defense, this damage must be repaired by the next administration as soon as possible. Barack Obama understands this.
-
Barack Obama's record on the Iraq War
@dcbrown:
No, Barack Obama did not equivocate on the Iraq War. Quite the opposite. He came out very clearly and forcefully against giving Bush authorization to go to war with Iraq.
-
Too many debates???? It is time to get to the substance. . .
Please reference how many debates have occured since the race narrowed down to Hillary and Obama and McCain/Hucklebee/Paul? In other words, since it narrowed down to Obama/Hillary and McCain. A debate with 8 people can only hit the big issues, it is time to get to the nitty gritty issues. Head to Head.
-
Nicely done, Obama
Was the debate to be on Fox? For real? Shame on Salon for omitting that. Fox doesn't deserve the attention.
Still, I think it's great that Obama passed on it, because: 1) the Clinton team wants it. If your opponent wants something, do the opposite -- that's just good tactics; 2) the Clinton team needs it. The side clamoring for debate is the side that's not doing so well, and is desperate for the attention of a debate; 3) if Obama had done it and hit hard on Clinton, the Clintonites would howl about "Poor Hillary being picked on by mean Obama! So much for the politics of hope!!" and milk that for days; 4) if Obama had done it and been coolly and characteristically cordial to Clinton (as he has been the other 18 debates), the Clintonites would howl "Hillary kicked Obama's ass in the debate! So much for the politics of hope!"
So, it's like a no-win situation for Obama, across the board, and he handled it with grace and tact. Kudos for Obama for sticking it to Fox, for not caving to Clinton pressure and denying his opponent an opportunity to grandstand at his expense, for showing the diplomatic tact not to go in and kick her ass in another debate, for spending time on the campaign trail, reaching voters, and for infuriating the Greek Chorus of the Clintonites. And he said he was going to debate her again, but made it clear that it would be on his terms, not hers.
Positively presidential he is! He's meeting all of his campaign objectives and denying his opponent many of hers. While Hillary's holding court at a campaign forum, boring people with her lackluster speechifying (since the only reason people would tune in is to see a clash of candidates, certainly not to hear HR Clinton talk at length), Obama will be at the site of the next electoral venue, winning votes. I suspect Clinton already realizes the next few contests are going to be washes for her, which is why she wants the debates in the meantime. He's doing a rope-a-dope on the Clintons, and it's driving them bananas! Good for Obama, not getting boxed into a corner by the Clintonian carping. He's going to make a great President!