Letters to the Editor
-
@ The Notorious W.E.S.
The Iraq Vote
Was as much bullshit as the FISA vote........Hillary voted for it because of the GOP campaign whipping point about weak democrats....
Now that's a solution. Unfortunately, the only problem it addresses is perceived threat to incumbency. Real "Profiles In Courage," material there. Experience that matters. And, Obama wasn't in the Senate in '02, but you knew that.
-
Action not words?
How does telling us what you're going to do in a speech qualify as "actions, not words"? Senator Obama could just throw the contents of his webpage up on the teleprompter and read it off for us. Would that qualify as "action".
Some use stump speeches to go over their laudry list of programs. Others ask you to read for yourself to gain a more indepth knowledge of the candidate's plan and reserve their rally speeches to, well, rally folks.
In the end what's important for the candidate is to give the kind of speeches that gets them votes.
I'm not entirely sure why Hillary Clinton is instructing Obama in what the voters want to hear.
-
The site with voting stats I referenced earlier.
Clinton: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022
Obama - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400629
-
We'll fight on the beaches...!
Copying from the ol' K. Rove playbook (Clinton and McCain both). Take your opponent's strength and turn it into a weakness. Can't talk as eloquently as Obama? Make that trait into a bad thing! So, if he's a great speaker, then that must automatically mean that he knows nothing about the issues!
They know that's a lot of nonsense, but why not give it a go if it'll work... (and some folks will be daft enough to believe it. They've already bought the "35 years of experience line").
I can imagine McCain and Clinton back in 1940 decrying Winston Churchill, one of the great orators of the 20th century. "It's all very well saying 'we'll fight on the beaches' but who's going to get the troops to the beaches, who's going to make sure that the ammunition and weapons are produced? Nice rhetoric Winnie, but people don't buy inspirational talk... They want wonks!"
The last sentence of that famous speech from 1940 which inspired the British people ended, ("..until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old.") Strange game, this old-style politics. And not hard to see why so many want to get away from it and into a new world...
-
Actions come later
Deep breath, everybody ...
NEITHER candidate can or has acted on their plans for the future because they're not in a position to do so. There are plenty of "solutions" to go around in both candidates' written and spoken words.
The important question is: In January 2009, which of the two of them is most likely to get a "honeymoon period" with Congress and have a chance to build coalitions and actually accomplish things? We always forget, during elections, that it does not matter what anybody SAYS because, in the end, the only good they will do has to come from their capacity as leaders to bring people to the table, forge coalitions, persuade others in leadership positions to support their ideas, and develop meaningful working relationships with the Congress.
Barack has thus far shown he has the ability to bring a lot of different people to the table around significant ideas. Hillary polarizes people. Let's assume that they both have good ideas and good action plans. They do. Which one is more likely to be able to get them done AFTER the election.
-
Regardless of who the president is...
How will he/she avoid "polarizing" people over extricating ourselves from Iraq, universal healthcare, taxes, etc. etc.
Polarization is inherent in our system. It's "compromise" and "bipartisanship" that worry me. See the Protect America Act, Iraq authorization, etc.
-
Strangely Enough
My bad. Obama spoke out against it. Obama did not vote against it. So it's hard to know what he would have actually done.
-
and speaking of little beaches...
it turns out that one particular candidate is extremely popular in Obama, Japan:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hVjChkBupyywASEUQVxA9Uzf__OwD8UQ0KKG0
-
Notorious Wes
Obama did vote for the amendment to strip the bill of immunity for telecoms. Sen McCain voted nay. I guess the second amendment is the only amendment McCain believes in.
Part of the nutty, arcane process that is the Senate not to mention the time contraints of running a national campaign (just ask Sen Clinton or Sen McCain).
By the way things are measured in the Senate, Sen Obama did more to hold the telecoms accountable with his vote. It isn't even clear if Sen Clinton made her stance know.
Personally, I don't think Hillary should drop out. Having two highly visable Democrats fire up people in every state while focusing the debate on things we care about is one of those good problems. Yeah, I really like the idea of either candidate having a ground operation already set up in Montana before going in the general election campaign. This is also why I think Michigan and Florida should have real contests.
I do, however, think the rest of the process favors Obama. The more people get to see him the more they like him. I've yet to see a poll taken three weeks before a primary that had Obama performing better compared to the actual outcome.
-
Of Course They Like Him
He's going to change everything.
-
@ Notorious W.E.S.
"I gave up a long time ago with the true colors stuff. As I have said before, the right wing would be in perpetual torment with Hillary at the top. That's for sure. And that's good enough for me.
-- The Notorious W.E.S."
This sort of crap is the exact reason why I'm voting for Obama. I love how it's good enough for you that the "right wing" would be in perpetual torment. This divisive bullshit is exactly what's wrong with this country. This idea that two "teams" exist and that you have to pick one and stick with it at all costs and rub victory in the face of the "losers". This is exactly what power hungry politicians want from us- this dumbed down, loyalty for your team crap. A divided electorate is what the leaders of the right wing want. Going along with that is a gift to them.
I really don't get how so many people who post here in favor of Hillary seem to use the same sort of rhetoric that has been coming out of Bush's camp for the past 7 (seems longer!) years. Do you guys not understand that Republicans who haven't voted in 25 years will come out in droves to vote against Hillary Clinton? The Republican party has been working for years to paint her as evil incarnate. That's not her fault, granted. But the damage has been done. Hillary has not made it any better by being the typical, say anything to get elected candidate. She is down here in Texas right now pandering to Hispanic voters and trying to act like she knows "Texas sayings" while reminding everyone that her last name is Clinton. You know, like the former President! You know the name (brand). Vote for me!
I'm tired of it. Tired of this crap. Tired of people lambasting supporters of Obama because they have the audacity to actually be excited about a candidate for once.