Letters to the Editor
-
akasmith, please let me respond to your questions...
Q: Do your comments ever include actually addressing the article at hand?
I honestly think so. First, the headline is "My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions". I brought up the fact that she missed the FISA votes yesterday to point out that while she was giving speeches, Obama was doing his job and casting his votes against telecom immunity. I suspect he also gave speeches yesterday, and perhaps you might agree that in those speeches he does offer solutions just as Hillary does in her speeches. Perhaps his speeches, position papers, and record give you no reason to believe he's offering solutions. I disagree.
Q: Do you have anything at all to say about the substance of what Senator Clinton is saying in her speech which is quoted here by Koppelman?
Yes, I brought up the fact that Senator Clinton is among the top-ten "earmarking" Senators because it puts the lie to her claim of "taking on the special interests". You understand that earmarks are used to add unrelated expenditures to a larger piece of legislation in order to benefit... special interests. So, yes, I do believe I've responded to the substance of her speech.
And, beyond that, she's certainly saying that Obama is all talk, no action. And so I'm wondering what actions of hers she's speaking of? The Iraq authorization vote? The Iranian army "terrorist" designation? Her opposition to reforming crack cocaine sentencing laws? Her failure to even show up for the FISA votes because she was out on the campaign trail... giving speeches. I could list others, but these are the ones that I'd delineated above which I think do respond to the substance of the article.
You seem like a sensible type, and I don't mind responding to your criticism (though, respectfully, I think it's unfounded). And I look forward to your response.