Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

I wish The Nation, as one of the leading voices of non-corporate-sponsored journalism, would focus more attention on liberal candidates besides Hillary Clinton. She has now appeared on the cover twice in the last two months and has enjoyed feature articles in almost every other issue. Though the content of these articles does provide insight into a variety of Hillary-related topics, it still contributes to narrowing the dialog around democratic Presidential hopefuls. We, or at least I, rely on sources such as The Nation to discuss the candidates that aren't fortunate enough to be on the radar of mainstream media.

Gerad O'Shea

Brooklyn, NY

Aug 18 2007 - 3:13pm

Web Letter

Well, you are just another flaming liberal who revels in finding fault in the greatest country in the history of mankind. To me, you imply that it is wrong to deal with the enemies of freedom with a weak military. That, sir, is a bunch of BS. Why do you liberals just want to make everyone as miserable as yourselves? What did you lose in the 9/11 attacks? How can you possibly insinuate that we are wrong for going after the terrorists that killed innocent civilians on our own soil? I lost a friend who worked in an office in the towers. Did you? It is through strength that we have avoided another attack. And then, you have the audacity to imply that we were wrong to use the bomb to end the war with Japan. Well, sir, if you ask any soldier at the time if he relished the thought of being involved in an invasion of Japan, with the possibility of thousands and thousands of American casualities and extending the war well past 1945, things might be clearer to you. And, I believe, Harry Truman was a Democrat, probably the last decent one of your ilk. You, sir, are a fool--it is through the sacrifices of our military then and now that we both have the ability to express our oh so different opinions.

Robert Bartone

Detroit, MI

Aug 16 2007 - 6:44pm

Web Letter

Thank you, Robert, for an honest article on this important issue. When you say, "So what that she is pro-choice and a woman if the price of proving her capacity to be Commander in Chief is that we end up with an American version of Margaret Thatcher?" you really express the sentiment of a lot us who would otherwise support Hillary, but recognize that she could be worse than some men.

Everyone who has studied the issue knows that even so-called "tactical" nuclear weapons are not safe to use against small terror cells because they cannot burrow deep enough in the ground to contain nuclear fallout. Therefore tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of innocent people would be killed with a tactical nuke and untold environmental damage for decades.

And why not talk to one's adversaries about vital US and global interests? The President must even talk to the head of the Hutus if he or she felt it would prevent the slaughter of more Tutsis. Hillary's propaganda excuse as her reason for not engaging adversaries was truly disappointing. Who cares what a dictator puts in his state-controlled newspapers when there are vital US and international interests at stake?

I actually cried tears of joy when Nancy Pelosi was elected as the first female speaker of the House of Representatives, only to be angered beyond disbelief months later when she failed to stop funding for the war in Iraq. Being female, I've learned, does not always translate into feminized public policy.

Like Nancy, Hillary Clinton is a truly amazing woman, and I have long felt that this country could benefit from a female President. When I think of a "female" President, images of a strong, selfless, compassionate and nurturing person come to mind, and certainly America would be a greater nation with a President that had more of these values. But the more and more I listen to Hillary, the more I am convinced that she is no different than the men she is trying to displace, and how could that possibly be good for America?

The fact that I could even say Bobby Kennedy or Barack Obama have more compassion than Hillary Clinton speaks volumes about the prospect for change with a female President. If all we are doing by electing Hillary is trading in our pants for a skirt, then we really haven't made much progress at all.

Metteyya Brahmana

Santa Cruz, CA

Aug 15 2007 - 5:24pm

Web Letter

Bush gave me fits with his "Axis of Evil" speech, and three leading Democratic candidates have me climbing the walls on "Free Trade," Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and threatening other countries with nuclear weapons. Are we getting Bush-lite, as well as Republican-lite with these people? Kucinich may win because he wants us out of Iraq, the WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA, and will not threaten other countries with nuclear weapons.

These people do not have a clue about foreign policy, nation building or providing for the "common defense." They repeat the nonsense that comes out of the media and the Administration.

What has happened to Democrats? We could do diplomacy, rebuild a nation after a Depression along with WWII, and provide for the "common defense." We had power, but used it, generally, with discretion.

Pervis J. Casey

Riverside, CA

Aug 15 2007 - 4:02pm