Letters to the Editor
-
deloresflower, on later letter....
I guess I am mad at you; I had begun to trust in your level-headedness and fairness and felt last night's letter said something very different. Your defenses today aren't all that persuasive either, but thank you for responding, anyway.
(My computer went down again and this time a technician came from the cable company. took hours. Now nothing is very timely.)
Now that I've posted the second part of my screed, let me just add one thing, from your more recent post.
"And you don't state exactly how Obama lied. You mean by saying that it is part of her "experience" in the white house?"
No, I didn't mean that; that's no lie, as you say. I mean that in speech after speech, and in thousands of mailers, he lied about her position SINCE Clinton left office. He says over and over that she had only praise for NAFTA until she began her presidential campaign, and that is false. He knows it's false; he quotes a sentence from a paragraph, so he knows what he's doing. And he does it again and again. He quotes her as saying "NAFTA has been good for New York..." but knows perfectly well that in that very paragraph she also qualifies it in the same ways he and she qualify it now--it needs strengthening and even renegotiating. His claim that her criticisms only began last spring is a lie; any quuick search by a ten-year-old on the internet shows a series of statements she made expressing doubt and concern about it, starting in 2002, and continuing in 2004, 2005, and more recently. If that's not a lie, I need a dictionary.
"But I still believe that Clinton could hurt the party by leveling false allegations against Obama that sink in with the general electorate--and do not do anything to help her get elected either in November or in four years."
Yes. But what is so maddening is that you seem absolutely unable to see that the same identical problem, the very same words you use, apply equally to the opposite case. There are many false allegations being made against Clinton and they are sure to "sink in with the general electorate" as well. I just am overwhelmed with a feeling of helplessness that you cannot see the truth of BOTH cases. You must stop spreading sauce on the goose and not the gander, to mangle the old saw.
Lastly, own up to your own words, or retract them. You did NOT say "NAFTA-gate generally" you said, "it still boils down to HE SAID/ SHE SAID. Clearly Canadians have their own conflict brewing about ABOUT WHO LEAKED WHAT AND WHY." (emphasis added.) If you aren't still trying to claim Clinton had something to do with it, then who in hell is the SHE?? If you can honestly read that dispatch and then weasel around on what it so clearly says--that Clinton had NOTHING TO DO WITH any of this--then you are blinded by partisanship and hopleless.
nuff said. sorry I couldn't be more civil.
-
@KateTex et al a politician is a politician is a politician is a...
C'mon, people, can we please stop pretending Obama lives on a higher moral/ethical plane than any other politician who ever lived? He's a politician, pure and simple.
I've been getting the strong impression that it's the Hillary supporters pretending that Obama supporters believe Obama lives on a higher plane so that they can whack the Obama people over the head with it. No doubt there are some idiots out there (AKA Smith loves to duel with them), but it seems to me that most people here have questions about goals, strategy and tactics. That's the lens through which they view Hillary and Obama. After all, she's a politican, pure and simple.
Meanwhile, you and others write many posts trying to convince Obama supporters that they don't get the real story, implying a sort of intellectual or moral deficit on their part. And I've detected a tendency among Hillary supports to dismiss any criticism or critique of Hillary's record as irrational, e.g. hatred.
Because it's easy to ignore the emotional, and hard to reason. It's obvious to me that a lot of Hillary supporters have a very strong attachment to her and her candidacy. I don't have a problem with that, she'll need that to prevail in the general if she's the nominee. But it seems silly to decry what's in the hearts of others when the same is in your own. But if you want to be a Star-bellied Sneetch, go ahead. My apologies to Dr. Suess.
-
clarifications & comments
doc, you are never uncivil even when you're mad. It's why I can never really be mad at you, even when you point out my flaws and my weaknesses.
I don't want to go into any more long defenses but here are a couple of clarifications:
1. "he said/she said" is an expression. I never meant "she" to mean Clinton or "he" to mean Obama. Actually I was referring to the Canadians male or female whoever put the story out there. I'm sorry if you read that I still think Clinton was guilty of meeting with the Canadians. I didn't and I don't.
2. I meant Bob Kerrey. Not John Kerry. He said that Obama went to a madrassa and was a muslim. Clinton did not apologize that I know of (he said this at a rally for her in December) but Kerrey did apologize in a written letter a couple of days later. But this was a couple of months ago so I guess I should let it go.
3. Thank-you for clarifying the "lie" part. It was from the mailers which I haven't read. But when I read a news article it stated that although there was a misplaced quote--one that inaccurately characterized her position, actually on NPR they said that she has made other similar sounding positive statements about NAFTA. So has Obama. The fact that she made some critical remarks about NAFTA written about in someone's biography of her doesn't change the fact that she voted in favor of NAFTA like treaties while she was in the senate. So did Obama. Positioning themselves as if there is a difference between them seemed silly to me on both sides. They both seem to support free trade with some concessions toward labor and the environment. The "lie" on both sides, it seems to me, is that there is any difference between them on this issue. Obama took advantage over the Clinton white house position, and she took advantage over the NAFTA gate memo (which still said the same thing I'm saying--yes to trade, but with more labor concessions etc.) to imply differences in policy that aren't there. That I can't find at least.
4. You say that I assume he will be the nominee, but I don't. But I don't understand how Clinton is preparing herself for a run against McCain by:
a. the 3 am ads....most people are going to assume Republicans are stronger on national security. So if this is a "security" year, I'm not sure that she's going to win votes for the Democratic party whoever the nominee is.
b. Comparing her experience with McCain's. Republicans and even independents are not going to find this convincing. McCain was tortured by the Vietnamese so that he is disabled to this day. Clinton, even facing the "Republican attack machine" doesn't have a similar experience. McCain has already been capitalizing on this by saying that he's the only one prepared to answer those 3 am calls.
c. This website is bothering me: www.attacktimeline.com I don't understand how a website like this, or the mindset that created it, can compete in a national election. There is no criticism that doesn't count as an "attack." No president, regardless of how we feel about them personally, should be above criticism. Criticism and "attack" are not equal. Clinton will be criticized and she can't brush all of it off as unfair and hostile. She can, but I don't consider it wise for any politician to behave this way. There can't be special rules that anyone who criticizes her is an enemy. For Obama the same applies. But I have not found a similar website paid for by him complaining of all of her "attacks."
d. Rezko. This whole thing boils down to the "slum landlord" Rezko. If Obama committed a crime, then I will switch my support to Clinton and immediately. The superdelegates will as well. She keeps implying that there is something there and her implication means one of two things. There is something there, and so she should be the nominee. Or she is trying to tarnish him by an unfair association that does remind me of the Republicans and the 1990's. I think that there's nothing there on the Rezko story. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But if there's nothing there then this is an unfair attack and saying that the Republicans will do it too doesn't make it more fair or more honorable. She, of all people, should know better.
* * *
It's a beautiful day here, and I need to get some sunshine. Thank-you for excoriating me in such a civil way. I know that we don't agree on everything, but I hope that we agree that the causes of getting out of Iraq and providing health care to uninsured people matter more than which of these very similar (on the issues) candidates is elected.
namaste.