Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

What is being left out of the discussion is the unelectability of both these chump candidates. Everyone, especially the media, seems to have forgotten that 50 percent of Americans despise this felonious harridan and want no part of her socialist crap or to let Bubba anywhere near the White House. Obama is even more to the left.

William Wellman

Parris Island, SC

Apr 23 2008 - 11:48pm

Web Letter

Right on Tom, I cannot tolerate watching or hearing either Clnton. And Kiki McLean is an annoying, daily talking points, Kool-Aid-drinking Clinton butt-kisser. Lanny Davis is nothing more than a Clinton apologist, and another one that says nothing, but repeats the daily talking points. Anyone ever notice that these so-called strategists/loyalists have all been thru Dem. Speak 101? Talk fast, loud, over everyone else, and never, never answer a direct question.

Hillary better be careful of what she wishes for, because if she is the nominee, there will more dirt coming out that she never thought would. I'll bet there are more skeletons in the Clinton closets that haven't been rattled yet. And if Barack Obama was so "friendly" with Bill Ayers, as those on FOX and notably Sean Hannity claim, why would Obama even run? Obama is not stupid. The Clintons are making race and issue and it will catch up to them, ffrom blacks and whites, in votes.

Vicki Hilden

Chicago, Il

Apr 23 2008 - 11:29pm

Web Letter

I was born in the "Summer of Love." I was born into a "swing voter" family, but for some reason I was also born, a devoted progressive liberal Democrat. I could never, ever vote Republican. That being said, I have observed Republicans and their strategies very closely through all the elections we have lost, and I have also learned the psychology of swing voters.

Hillary was just being the messenger: the issues she brought up at the debate are about electability: they are issues Republicans will use at full force throughout the general election if Barack is the nominee. We cannot afford to be naïve optimistic fools and underestimate these issues--that is why we lose too often.

They are powerful issues for many swing voters. Like it or not, the things that Reverend Wright said and the things that Bill Ayers did are extreme, to say the least. Hillary was not "attacking" Reverend Wright, but she is a senator from the State of New York. Does anyone remember what 9/11 really did to the people of New York? Even I find Reverend Wright's comments crossed a line that deep inside, I feel there's really no excuse for--I don't excuse--violence, on any side, unless it's literally for self-defense.

Hillary is just the messenger. Stop blaming Hillary. Those of you who blame Hillary are not being realistic about the psychology of the country. Wake up and smell reality.

This is an electability issue. I have heard all sorts of liberal rationalizations, schemes, and dreams, but there is no way Barack could win in the general against McCain, with hardly any proven national experience, and Reverend Wright and Bill Ayers in his closet. Especially after Republicans get through with him. This is a country where last time a majority elected Bush. For many swing voters, there are just too many unknowns about Barack, and too many of the knowns have extreme edges.

Hillary deserves much more respect. She would never be treated the way she's treated if she were a man. Barack's campaign have truly been the ones who have tried to tear her down and destroy her. Most of the negativity and divisiveness of this race has actually come from Barack's campaign. From the start, they said things like, "She'll say anything and change nothing." That is just not true. Or Barack's comments about her "twisting the knife"--to me, those are sick comments. And she would never say them about him.

The truth is that the Clinton's don't demonize their opponents, but their opponents always demonize them. This was true first of the Republicans, and now of Obama's campaign. Obama's campaign framed itself in positivity, but it has been in full negative spin-attack all along. They have not been angels--far from it. They have not "walked their talk" at all. I started out neutral, but I have since lost most of my respect for them.

Because of the socioeconomic success of her Bill's Administration (which she witnessed and was part of), Hillary is more of a proven entity to the people. She is more of a centrist on defense, and this makes her more electable than McCain or Barack. So, to most Americans, she's smarter on the economy, and will be smarter on defense. That's why she has the best chances for being elected against McCain. If Barack is our nominee, McCain will be our President.

It's time to spend more time thinking objectively, and less time bashing the Clintons, when they truly don't deserve it.

Lauren Brooks

Portland , OR

Apr 23 2008 - 10:42pm

Web Letter

Thanks for an excellent article. I saw Kiki for the first time on TV a night or two ago, and she reinforced a major concern I have about Hillary. While her debate adversary was speaking, Kiki tried to draw attention by shaking her head in disapproval throughout. And her words came across as bald-face propaganda at best, worthy of the worst of Republican behaviors. What was wrong with Rove was his tactics. Hillary's supporters seem to emulate him as though the only thing wrong with Rove was his party affiliation. I back Barack Obama because he has brought more respectful dialogue to the political process than any other candidate in recent memory. Hillary's efforts to bring him down into the mud with her have, sadly, moved him a little--but he is still valiantly trying to keep the debate at the proper level. I hope and trust that Barack will stay true to his principles, persevere, and continue to bring the American people a real choice for a new direction and a new credibility--in our politics at home and abroad.

Andrew Bridges

Woodside, CA

Apr 23 2008 - 10:35pm

Web Letter

It is my theory of life that after seventy years, we become that which we loath as we sell our souls for power.

James Pinette

Caribou, ME

Apr 23 2008 - 10:18pm

Web Letter

I read The Nation and I consider myself a progressive, so I voted for Hillary. Tom's wife may scream at me, and so may Tom, but nearly half of the Democratic voters have chosen her (and a majority of us Latinos have, too.) Are we all villainous? Are you going to start calling us names now, Tom? If Obama's the candidate, I'll vote for him, but could somebody please tone down the rhetoric in all directions? Can the progressive movement handle diversity of opinions?

Guillermo Reyes

Tempe, AZ

Apr 23 2008 - 8:41pm

Web Letter

If Clinton somehow manages to wrest the nomination from Obama without having both the lead in delegates and/or the lead in popular votes, it will rightfully be seen as stolen and will undoubtedly catalyze a great many blacks to revolt against the Democratic Party. Since African-Americans represent the foundation of the party, this would be catastrophic. We need the black vote to win, or we lose this election and probably many more for years to come.

Despite Clinton's futile attacks, I still believe that Obama has what it takes to get the job done and bring about significant change in Washington. If Obama tanks this election, it means at least four more years of anguish for us... However, if Clinton steals the nomination it's going to cause us decades of grief that we simply cannot afford. Either she's done or our party is. Which do you prefer?

Fred Danowski

Norwalk, CT

Apr 23 2008 - 8:27pm

Web Letter

It takes an individual a lot of work to labor under the illusion that Senator Obama represents a "transformational" form of politics. His is a candidacy that purports to represent "change" without actually delivering on the specifics of what that "change" might entail. Some of his economic advisors are fans of the deregulator Milton Friedman, his foreign policy advisors are hawkish, center-right policy wonks and he has many friends in storied firms on Wall Street. This, my friends, is not "transformational"; it is more of the same, packaged in a shiny, new wrapper. Real change in America would require the transformation of our society from a more laissez-faire, market force, multinational, consumer economy to a mixed-economy of tighter government regulation, strong public utilities and schools and policies seeking to end the erosion of the middle class. Surely, this is not the sort of "transformation" that Senator Obama has in mind. This sort of change would entail many sacrifices across the political and economic spectrum. This sort of change would not sell so well in these days of media monopoly and sound bite candidacies. No, his is a much safer, media driven apparatus, designed to flatter and appeal. It worked wonderfully in February, but now that the klieg lights are on him, he doesn't seem so special after all.

Bains Muller

Yellow Springs, OH

Apr 23 2008 - 8:15pm

Web Letter

I am shocked at how terrible your coverage been. In this election, the US media fumbled the ball big-time: first they let Obama have a free ride for more than half the election, when Hillary got tired of the media not doing their job and called Obama out in a direct ("it's 3 am...") ad, someone finally took a cab to downtown Chicago, visited the Obama church and bought the DVDs of the reverent. Result is what we see today: a totally unelectable young man with too many delegates and a press core desperately trying to blame Clinton for having the audacity to run.

Clinton did not bring up Reverend Wright, and more importantly he has not gone into hiding to help her win. He vanished from the face of the earth to help Obama. Well, guess what: he is not proving anything other than the fact that they are close, the reverend and the wouldbe President.

Thank you for the Clinton background so often missed in this campaign. Her history help explain the Clinton success: Hillary Clinton is truly the black candidate, and more people are seeing Obama for what he is: a construction from senior Dems to stop Clinton from winning. The formula is simple: take a black eloquent young man to steal her base and copy all her policies.

To bad Obama, with only four years' experience, has already accumulated a nice financial scandale (Rezo), a character flaw or two (Wright, drugs) and a bundled statement ("bitter"). Clinton didn't do that, Obama did it to himself.

Hillary is not an anomaly! It's not all those white people who are the problem, Obama is.

Sylvia Johnsen

Oslo, Norway

Apr 23 2008 - 7:46pm

Web Letter

This irritating article is full of blame, but I'm not buying it. Hillary is the best-qualified candidate, she's the one who can win the election in November.(Obama might well be slaughtered in the big states that count. He's by no means ready for the presidency, anyway.) No one cares about the lefty stuff of forty years ago anymore; few cared about it then. You and your wife make me scream, Tom.

Don Matson

Acton, MA

Apr 23 2008 - 7:07pm

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.