Letters to the Editor
-
On the fence but voted for Clinton
I love the energy and ability to craft a message that Obama brings to the Democratic party - something that we have been desperately missing. The night before Super Tuesday I filled in Obama's name on my absentee ballot. The next morning, I woke up, surrendered my ballot and voted for Clinton. There were three reasons that I made this change.
First, I think that Obama statements that he is battle ready and compares the campaign that he has fought with Clinton to the campaign that he would need to fight with the Republicans and the fight the he would be facing if he were elected shows how naive he is. I don't like everything that Clinton does, but I can see how much of it has been in reaction to the lessons she learned trying to redefine health care in this country.
Second, one of the reasons that I like Obama is that he represents change, big change. Except, that he has made sure that when he could stand up for change he has taken himself out of the controversy. Examples are his "present" votes on abortion issues in Illinois, his refusal to be seen in the same room with Gavin Newsom, and his unavailability during controversial senate votes.
Third, Obama's statement that Clinton would never get the votes that he is bringing into the party sounds too much like a veiled threat to me. While neither candidate has pledged to support the winner (a pledge they should both make), it is only from the Obama camp that I am hearing what sounds to me like threats to walk and take his supporters with him if he loses.
-
Da Coach
I remember that Illinois Republicans tried to recruit the toughest of all tough guys in Illinois, Mike Ditka, to run against Obama in 2004. Many Democrats were stewing with concern about whether Obama was up for a challenge like that, or was he too namby-pamby. Obama went straight back at Ditka saying he couldn't wait to ask why he only won a single Super Bowl with all the talent the Bears had.
He knows the drill when attacked - no wavering, go back at an opponent's supposed strong point, but keep it on the up and up. It's not rocket science.
The Penn criticism of Obama's vulnerability is that if he doesn't respond effectively Obama might end up with Hillary-level negatives. So the riskier candidate is the one who might end up in the same bad place as where the other already is. Now that is talking a barrel of good sense right there.
-
Might Have Wanted to Keep This One Out
Penn writes: "Case in point is what George Bush said on Sunday morning about Sen. Obama, 'I certainly don't know what he believes in. The only foreign policy thing I remember he said was he's going to attack Pakistan and embrace Ahmadinejad.'"
So ... you're using the assessment of the Worst President in History to advance the case for your candidate over your opponent when the stakes of this election is nothing less than trying to reverse all the damage the said president has wreaked? Call me an Obamaniac if you must, but that's not exactly an endorsement I'd trumpet to the core constituencies, Mark.
-
I guess I missed the first HRC presidential run
Like other posters, I'm a bit puzzled by the lack of comment from War Room. I follow this blog semi-religiously to get some attitude or the benefit of a different viewpoint. If War Room is being reduced to serving as a clearinghouse for other opinions or political rhetorical, sadly it has no attraction for me. And, if ever a piece of political rhetoric deserved some comment or attitude, it was that piece from Mr. Penn. The biggest fantasy this guy is peddling is that the Republican attack machine is out of ammunition when it comes to Hillary. Not only will these guys come up with a boat load of new items, like her Iraq War votes and failure to disclose documents that speak to her experience during her husband's term in office, do you think they will hesitate for a second to play their greatest hits -- Vince Foster, etc? It's true that we don't know how much or what exactly the swift boat will fire at Obama. But with Hillary, running for president for the first time, we know it's going to go after her with all guns blazing.
-
@Jon
There is no longer a need to provide analysis when dealing with Clinton and Obama. All Koppelman or any other Salon writer has to do is type "Clinton", "Obama", "Hillary", "Barack" or some combination thereof and the pro-Clinton and pro-Obama and anti-Clinton and anti-Obama forces immediately begin flaming each other. Luckily, Clinton and Obama agree on most everything, so there is no need for any analysis beyond the lastest round of gaffes, press releases and polls. Can you imagine how nasty things would be if there were ideological differences involved?
-
The guy's right
and it will be sheer joy watching him proven right. Obama has Kerry's glass jaw combined with Al Gore's nose-in-the-air elitism. The Rovian minions will bring him down as easily as Cheney bags ducks.
-
The Oracle Speaks
Yes, Mr. Penn. A person whose public relations firm, Burson-Marsteller, is a friend of Blackwater Worldwide, is certainly a person of integrity and good judgement on which you may rely.
He would never risk his well known, unblemished reputation putting forth anything which could in the least way be considered dubious or biased. Never could his opinion be considered tainted by the $5.5 million his firm has billed the Clinton campaign. Only truth from the purest fountain of wisdom could ever issue from his lips. As a paragon of virtue exceeded only by that of Bill Clinton, this must be so.
Let us all worship beneath the shrine of his faultless logic and understanding.
-
@ apophasis
"[M]aybe I'm just not seeing it, but I see far more attention on what to do or what will happen when the Republicans do X."
Welcome to the wonderful world of American Retail Politics: where one party controls the permissible debate; the media (even the supposedly "liberal" NPR) remind us of "what Republicans want," and that only liberals can go too far, ever; peace is not the answer, 'cause only war is good for business; and that Democrats must appeal/reach out/speak to conservatives/Republicans, and Republicans must give anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% the finger.
This is what happens to your democracy when the media is brain dead and bought and paid for by the same people buying our political institutions.