Letters to the Editor
-
The Thing Is, Hillbots...
...Obama isn't lying about his experience (or lack thereof), while she is making lies about her own qualifications the centerpiece of her campaign.
Really, the up-is-down, complete denial of reality coming from the Hillary camp and her supporters, reminds me of nothing so much as the current Bush administration. Is there any set of facts your pretzel logic won't twist into an excuse for Hillary's myriad shortcomings and utter failure as a candidate?
-
About taking extra credit - he's got credit to take
When Obama made his speech in 2002 opposing the Iraq war, he was running for re-election to the Illinois Senate. He took an unpopular - and PUBLIC - stance that could have cost him his seat. Yet he did it anyway. If that does not show the conviction of his position, I don't know what does. No, he didn't have to vote, but he did have something to lose...basically, his job.
Clinton was in no risk of losing her job. She was safely in her seat for another 3 years.
-
Actually, yes.
"You're right, 10+ years of community organizing and legislative experience don't count for anything...
If they did, hundreds if not thousands of people in this country are just as qualified as Obama to run the show."
There are hundreds of thousands of Americans more qualified to run this country than the handful of name-recognized party hacks that seem to queue up every four years on both sides of the aisle. What is different this year is that, for a change, one of the upstarts actually has a chance.
-
@Rosenkavalier
Rosenkavalier: "If they did, hundreds if not thousands of people in this country are just as qualified as Obama to run the show."
Well why aren't they running for president? Let's have at 'em! (Oh yeah, they were already disqualified.)
Rosenkavalier: "P.S. I may not be able to produce a poll that says the majority of NY Democrats wanted a war in Iraq, but I doubt you can produce one that says they didn't."
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, but if I have time I'll see what I can find in terms of polls. I do know that the U.S. public was very misled about the link between Saddam and 9/11, and the desire to go to war was based on that false association, which people paying attention (such as Clinton) knew was false.
Rosenkavalier: "And besides, I thought it was the Republicans' job to only represent the people who voted for them and not the entire population of the state that they represent."
This would explain your apparent lack of concern over Clinton behaving like a hawkish Republican when she was elected as a liberal Democrat.
Rosenkavalier: "I guess being a uniter and not a divider only counts when you're half black and speak in a baritone voice."
Niiiiiiiiiiiice.
-
Still waiting to find out what the "Commander-in-Chief" test is
I think it should involve push-ups, myself.
-
Poor Judgement
Hillary's judgement is the biggest problem she has, and it's best exemplified by how she has run her campaign - divisvely and dishonestly. The American public is not so stupid that we will believe whatever she says, if she says it often enough. She has condescended to Barack Obama by semi-offering him the VP slot when she is the one behind by all measures, and she has condescended to the voters by putting out such exagggerations and lies and expecting us to believe them.
-
Baloney
This is grasping at straws by the Obama camp.
First of all, his spectacular foresight on Iraq all happened before he was subject to the political pressures on a US senator. It was very easy for him to be against the war: it cost him exactly nothing.
Similarly, nothing has ever happened to this man except for a pleasant stroll through a charmed life. We have no way of knowing how he will behave in a crisis, because he has never in his life been in one. Hillary has been tested, Obama has not.
-
Snatching at the wind!
I am convinced that Hillary has unique, first-hand experience with the White House. As she and Bill Clinton have always sought each other's advice, she has been privy to the background decision making involved in running the country. None but the partisan would deny Hillary's credentials and Obama's attempt to marginalize her learning experience in the White House is a desperate attempt to lick his wounds in connection with Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island.
Hillary has won the big blue states, New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and the bellwether state of Ohio. Obviously, she holds the reigns in these important Democratic enclaves. Obama's greatest strength comes from red states which will in all likelihood vote for McCain. It is a poor argument to say that the blue states will always vote for the Democratic candidate. It did not happen for Dukakis and it may not for Obama, either. He is not nearly as popular with Democrats as his voters think and those independents voting for him can't be counted upon to vote Democratic in November. Yes, the blacks will vote for him without a doubt but the other votes are iffy and may even be cross-over Republicans.
-
memo not an example of good judgement for Obama campaign
This road could lead to President McCain.
Obama needs to know that just as Clinton shouldn't ridicule his claims to the presidency as based only on being black at the right moment in history, he should be careful about alienating women or ridiculing her experience as first lady as no big deal.
While I think that Clinton deserves a little bit of ribbing for the enormity of a few of her claims, this all out assault against them could easily backfire.
Personally, I didn't like it when he wrote this:
* * *
There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim -- as the TV ad -- consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
* * *
This road could be suicide for Democrats. Both are helping to prove to the general public that one of them is not fit. Clinton started it with her obnoxious comparisons between herself and McCain, but it would have been SO much classier for Obama to say,
"both of us have passed that threshold. We are both ready..."
Or
"Her claims of being ready while I am not ready are greatly exaggurated."
But I don't know if it will work with women to say she's not passed the threshold...even if "turnabout is fair play" is doesn't always work that way in politics.
But clearly, this is what the advisors on both sides are telling them, and have been saying all along. Go for the jugular.
With two dead candidates, we could be looking at President McCain (or if his health doesn't hold out...he hasn't released any of his medical records since 2001...President Romney? Or Rice?).... McCain is likeable and will have the support of his whole party.
I just hope that Obama's moves today are not (further) alienating the women who think he's treating their/our claims to the presidency like a pinata. (To be fair, as some of her supporters and she has done to him). Potentially troubling. I abhor any possible shout out to men that would appeal to their scorn for the historical importance of first ladies--or women in general.