Letters to the Editor
-
Apropos comments
Clinton's comments are apropos...she does offer solutions and Obama does give fine speeches. Added to that, her White House experience (it was unique and edifying, a great lesson builder though it was the kiss of fire at the time) makes her a far more experienced politician than Obama. We have had seven years of incompetence from a neophyte who should have never been elected and may not have been. I hope the Democrats don't throw away their chance to offer an electable candidate which I fear Obama is not. Even Hillary is going to have a difficult time beating McCain but Obama will be eschewed by the middle class.
-
Will one of the Obamadroids please address the substance
of the attacks. Such as this:
"My opponent says that he'll take on the special interests. Well, he told people he stood up to the nuclear industry and passed a bill against them. But he actually let the nuclear industry water down his bill -- the bill never actually passed. On top of that, the same company that watered down that bill lobbied for Dick Cheney's energy bill. And my opponent voted for the energy bill, with its billions of dollars of breaks for the oil industry. I voted against it."
Whining about Clinton's desperation or attacking her in turn do nothing to rebut the claims here. Any ideas? Is Obama in the pocket of the nuclear industry, for example? Or do you even care? Are you just in this to be inspired and feel all squishy inside?
-
Kinfe in the back
You Think Hillary
Has marginalized Obama, wait to see what he gets if he's the nominee.
- WES
Seriously? We can defend a charge from the opposition. Its defending a knife in the back from a fellow Democrat that's hard. Don't you get that yet?
Where is this "tough Hillary" I hear so much about? THe one who got beat by Louise? The one who beat a semi-functional Rick Lazio? The one who couldn't wrap up the nomination when she was the presumptive favorite for two years prior to the election? When has Hillary ever won a contested election or accomplished anything of note? Seriously.
Yes yes, Obama hasn't either. Neither has Romney or Huckabee (although Romney did win a hard campaign in MA). Neither did Bill prior to 1992 (save for one semi-contested election). McCain is really the only one in the race who has a long record in politics of note. I guess Paul too, but more for voting No on everything rather than doing something.
-
Where was Hillary...
...when the wire-tapping bill was being voted on? Obama was there, so was McCain. Obama voted against immunity for the phone companies, McCain voted in favor of it.
Hillary's right. Actions do speak louder than words...
-
Let's hear your solutions
The Hill appropriating the term "solutions" is much like Reagan's association with the fall of communism. Gets repeated alot, never gets examined. Just what, exactly, ARE these novel solutions Hillary offers?
I really loved the Clinton's. I don't know what happeneded. She's disingenuous, triangulating, and willing to compromise her principals for victory at any price. WHY did she miss the vote on surveillance? She's doing her best to lose me, and I think I'm not alone.
-
@ Jdorfma4
Why did you just now falsely twist what WES said into something racist? WES said nothing racist. Why did you deliberately choose to distort what WES said? What advantage do you think it will gain you or Obama? Is this a strategy that you see Obama exercising?
-
museum gal
although your words sound sane, when you go back in the history of politics in this country, or in any country in the world, insulting the other side, throwing flames, arguing, fighting is what it's all about.
This is the way people get when they CARE about something. The passion in this election--even though some of it is childish and vituperative--is also what's incredible about it. The indiffference in past elections, of voters not even caring enough to insult one another over their poor political decisions caused pathetically low turnout at the polls.
If the people who yell and fight here are any indication, this election is going to be fought for every step of the way no matter who wins it--and that's how democracy should be.
cheers!
p.s. Don't worry about ann coulter. She gets paid for her nastiness. She and Limbaugh are antisocial personalities who also happen to be professional nasties. Here, I suspect most of the posters are regular people using the cloak of the web to insult one another. The sad thing is we don't even get paid for it. But that's probably a good thing.
-
sesanders
So you'd vote for Laura Bush for President? How about Barbara Bush? Rosalyn Carter? Does being married to the president give special insight into being president also extend to VP's? My ex girlfriend was a super accountant, can I do your taxes?
Doesn't your logic make Monica more qualified for the office than John Edwards?
-
Boy, the evasiveness of these Obamabots
in even trying to respond to the substance of Clinton's charges is very telling. They want to change the subject or attack the messenger. Obama has a glass jaw--and McCain will shatter it in the general.
-
Hillary didn't vote on final passage of FISA
But then, neither did Obama.
-
a plea from an ardent Obama supporter
To those Democrats out there who claim they plan on sitting out the general if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, such as Jdorfma4:
McCain isn't the worst Republican and at least the man's honest most of the time. I'll weep the loss of free choice but I know he won't support torture (too much) and too much erosion of our civil liberties. He's not worse than Bush. He won't roll back the tax cuts but I don't see him granting new ones. All in all, at this point, he's better than Hillary.
Keep in mind that McCain just sided with the notion that waterboarding (i.e., torture) was legal if the CIA did it. Such conviction, this guy.
And to think that he won't sell us out (any further, anyway) on civil liberties, tax cuts for the rich and corporations, etc.; well, I'm sorry, but that's a whole bushel full of false hope. See the CIA-torture issue, above.
I can't stomach another 4 years of that conniving weasel. And America is not a monarchy, I'd really like an election without a Bush or Clinton on the ballot. We haven't had one of those since 1976. I think its time.
I'm generally in agreement with you there, but none of these concerns should trump the greater concerns: ending this horrible occupation (tip: it's an occupation, not a war -- we've loooooooooooong since won the war), civil liberties, fair economic and tax policy, investment in the collective commons, etc.
A McCain presidency certainly could be more moderate and willing to compromise. Or it could just as easily be an extension of the lion's share of Bush's failed policies, only this time executed with competency. I shudder to think of the outcome of that.
So my plea to the more die-hard Obama folks out there: Realize that not as good (Clinton) is far superior to not worthy of our vote (McCain), and that in as important an election as this one not participating is pretty much a vote for McCain.
Please don't sit this one out. And certainly don't support McCain, a man who would sell out just about everything.
Support Obama if that's your inclination (after Edwards dropped out, it's certainly been mine). Be passionate.
But if Clinton prevails, and if you hold dear the principles of democracy, please try to look beyond Hillary's flaws -- she's still light years better on the issues than McCain could ever hope to be.