Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

It is high time, the media start focusing on a candidate's leadership qualities, sincerety, integrity and his or her stand on the issues, as criteria for electing our next president. In my opinion, there is nobody like Obama who has all the aforementioned qualities and he is the "real deal."

About the "lack of experience" complaint by critics, I wish to remind everyone that, one hundred and forty-six years ago, another son from Illinois, after only one term each in the State legislature and in the Congress (four years in total!), went on to become the greatest President this country has ever produced. Obama is "the Lincoln of our times" and this country and the world desperately need some one like him to lead us into a brighter future.

A true testament to his maturity, wisdom and grasp of issues is amazingly revealed in a TV interview he gave to a Chicago station in November '02, almost four months before the Iraq war started (and aired by C-Span, during the presidential anouncement coverage ), in which he expresses not only opposition to the war but also his concern about the potential problems associated with the aftermath and reconstruction--all of which has played out exactly to the last word in the last four years; it makes him sound and look like a prophet!

Obama is to politics what Tiger Woods is to golf--with the same enthusiasm,passion and ablility to fire up everyone's imagination to expect greatness!

Like many, I hope and pray that he will be swept into the White House on a huge populist wave, the like of which this country has not seen since Bobby Kennedy’s short and ill-fated run forty years ago.

Paul Amigo

Pennington Gap, VA

Jul 21 2007 - 10:30pm

Web Letter

I am a long time Nation reader as well as a fan of Barbara Ehrenreich, but I am appalled by her incredibly nasty article about Hillary Clinton. It's possible to not support Hillary Clinton without writing and publishing such an ugly diatribe about the woman. This was reminiscent of the smarmy quality of much of the right wing press. It was beneath both The Nation and the writer.

I have a personal story to tell: I met Mrs. Clinton when I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Bukhara, Uzbekistan in 1997. She made a good-will trip as First Lady to some of the nations of the former Soviet Union, and visited the school where I was teaching. She absolutely won over me and my students with her genuine warmth and obvious caring. None of us will ever forget her.

I am an active Democrat, but I've not made a definite decision yet on who I will support in the primary. Your article, however, pushes me toward Hillary Clinton's campaign.

For shame!

John Smart

Park Falls , WI

Jul 2 2007 - 10:42pm

Web Letter

Frankly Raphaelle, I fail to see how you could come to the conclusion that she is complicit with or tacit about the failures of the Bush Administration. Finger-pointing alone does not make something true. And while in your uncomplicated mind you may have come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is the same as George Bush, let me stand as an outside observer who vehemently disagrees with you on all points based on the facts you mangled in order slam her. There are times when you agree with the President and there are times when you disagree with the President. I'd recommend that you visit her website and read her remarks before you contend that she assertively echoes anyone's talking points.

Alexander Bryan

Long Beach, CA

Jun 27 2007 - 4:12pm

Web Letter

Tell me, Alexander Bryan, what is worse, the crime of unspeakable proportions or those who enabled it and continue to be complicit, assertively echoing Bush talking points still when shaking a stick at Iran as a threat to Israel--in the heart of our energy interests.

There were many who took a courageous stand and suffered abuse for being "unpatriotic," in opposition to this war crime. Millions who stood in worldwide protests in sub-zero temps for hours, just to be dismissed as a "focus group." There were politicians who stood fast and demonstrated leadership and conviction when they cast a vote against the obvious drummed up case for attack and occupation. Clinton threw her lot in with the big lie and demonstrated her lack of judgement and leadership. We need someone who will confront the events of the Bush years--not someone anxious to move on because it represents a personal failing.

We deserve better. There is no spinning it otherwise.

Raphaelle del Vecchio

Trenton, NJ

Jun 27 2007 - 10:44am

Web Letter

And yet unfortunately, Ms. Ehrenreich need only look at a couple of sources before she wrote her flimsy tirade to see why Clinton opposed the Levin amendment (that a potentially necessary action by the US shouldn't be beholden to the Security Council, which has frequently stalled on pressing issues throughout its history--such as with Kosovo), that she has repeatedly stated that she had been personally briefed by Cabinet officials during the run-up to the AUMF vote and that she has certainly disavowed the Iraq War stating that if she had known then what she knows now she wouldn't have voted for the AUMF.

I'm really tired of echo-chamber journalists who fail to parse such a simple premise: that a vote to support the President on what he deems a vital issue to national security is not wrong. And that if the President had told the truth at the time about what he actually knew and what his real reasons were for invading, there wouldn't have even been a vote. Blame the men who started the war before you point the finger at someone who, even if she knew for certain in 2002 by some miraculous vision that Bush was intent on invading no matter what, couldn't have stopped him from unilaterally engaging Iraq.

Alexander Bryan

Long Beach, CA

Jun 27 2007 - 12:59am

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.