Letters to the Editor
-
Meet the new boss...
Not to put the woman who may be our next president down. But it sounds like Clintons management style and choice of aides has all of the same features that troubles me most about Bush's.
She values loyalty and familiarity above experience and expertise. She uses her staff to insulate herself from outside influences and She has a hands off management style.
Come to think of it. Maybe a Clinton/Obama dream ticket would be a good idea. A new administration just like the old one. A hands off CEO president who let's her vice president actually run things. But with Barak Obama in the roll of Darth Cheney.
Followed after eight sucessful years by Barak Obama running for another eight years as POTUS.
-
why latte liberals and black people (some of whom drink lattes too sometimes) might be backing slowly away from Senator Clinton
TRenee thank-you for the link.
I've trying to bite my tongue but I just want to say this:
saying that Obama is not yet ready to be VP even though he is 140 delegates ahead in the race is a simply one more example of flagrant, enthusiastic disrespect toward Senator Obama (and the Democratic Party in general if he is the nominee then she disrepects the entire party in disrespecting him) that has characterized her campaign, and has made me no longer trust Senator Clinton is ready to be Commander in Chief.
Yes, I will vote for her above McCain. To me the president isn't just a personal role for the person we like a lot. But it's difficult for me to believe that Clinton is the same person she used to be--or the person I thought she was before this campaign began.
-
To VP or not to VP; NYT no longer unimpeachable
I agree with jedbldmm. The NYT has fallen, what with Judith Miller on Iraq, and the lousy reporting on McCain and his lobbyist entourage among other screw-ups. This article may be spot-on or it may not.
There was a time when I would read a NTY article and take it on faith that it was true. Now... I've read too many articles from them that are biased and poorly reported. I always wonder how much is true and how much is spin, who planted the stories and who benefits.
Indeed. I've heard from other media sources regarding Clinton infighting, though. Maybe the WarRoom could do some synthesis and a little custom analysis on this and other topics.
With regards to Obama as VP, I have a few thoughts. First, if you buy into the infighting, it's possible one camp liked the idea, another other didn't. Second, they may have floated a trial balloon and now they are discarding the concept. Finally, the media is asking some tough questions about Obama as VP. Paraphrasing Tim Russet, "The VP is a heartbeat away from the Presidency. How can you be qualified to be VP, but not president?". A hard question to answer.
Links:
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/clinton_spokesman_declares_oba.html
After several days of Bill and Hillary Clinton floating the idea of a joint ticket with rival Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton chief spokesman Howard Wolfson declared Monday that Clinton does not consider Obama qualified to be vice president.
Still, Wolfson said Clinton would not “rule out” Obama as a potential vice president [...]
-
@jdusek
It's not so much that NYT is biased against Clinton as that they are willing to choose a story and bias the facts to fit the story. They will do it to Clinton or Obama with equal relish. At the moment, the story is that Clinton's campaign is in disarray, so they are supporting that story. The story on Obama is that he is inexperienced, so they print a story reinforcing that. Instead of challenging the memes, they tend to feed them. They did the same thing with Iraq. When Iraq was popular, they fed the public news about what a good idea it was and how successful the fight was. When it becamse unpopular, they started reporting the bad news. Right now, they are publishing more material that is favorable to Obama, not because they are biased toward him but because the stories (memes, actually) tend to be more favorable to him. If he becomes less popular, they will print more stories that portray him unfavorabley. They don't make the news, they don't even report the news, they simply reflect public opinion without challenge.
-
Speaking of surrogates...
Here's a mighty fine example of what a surrogate can do for a candidate:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/clinton-surrogate-obama-_n_90741.html
Frankly, I can't wait to see what Jon Stewart does with this.
LMAO.
-
@ logicalresponse
You are absolutely right.
I used to get upset for the daily fix of anti-Clinton pseudo commentary here in Salon (proportional to my relief for having never subscribed to Salon Premium) but know I see it like it is.
Not all media as fallen in the racism trap. Some of it willingly distort both Clintons' records and preach the magical powers of Obama Potter, which as we all know, although some would never acknowledge it, belong to the realm of fantasy.
Maybe Alex, should bother himself with some real investigation and report on the mistreatment of campaign personal and operatives by Michelle Obama, which apparently reached epic proportions after the beatings received in Ohio, Texas and New Hampshire last Tuesday. But you all know what the unofficial, but very true, Obama campaign slogan is: DON'T THINK! JUST VOTE FOR OBAMAAAA.
-
@ 11:04 logical response
With all due respect, your "logic" here has Mr Spock's father spinning in his grave, or wherever you put dead Vulcans.
"...Take her vote on Iraq for example. Anybody with a memory knows that in the context of when that vote took place, it would have made no difference to vote against it, and could only result in political disaster if it turned out Iraq did have WMD."
So you're admitting that she made a political decision. As to the context, there were plenty of reasons to have serious doubts about the case the Bushies were trying to make about WMD. I remember that even after Colin Powell's oh-so-convincing presentation at the UN, plenty of legit and semi-legit websites - none of the MSM as I recall - were soon pointing out flaws in nearly everything he said. And has been pointed out here, Clinton didn't even bother to read the NIE before giving Dubya the OK to start a pre-emptive war (or are you going to go back to the argument that her vote wasn't for war?) At any rate, there were at least a handful of Senators who, despite the "context" and the probability of making a difference, had the guts to risk "political disaster" by voting against the war resolution.
"Had he been in the senate he would have voted for it, for the same reason that most everyone else in the senate did."
I'm glad you're here to tell us what Obama would have done, regardless of what he said at the time.
"The other criticisms of Clinton are equally insubstantial at best and petty at worst."
Again, I'd say that skipping the NIE report is neither - same as voting to label Iran's army a terrorist organization, and pushing to have the current Michigan delegation seated.