A writer has sent me the following comment:
I read your blog, and you make a strong point. Obama certainly has attributes (not necessarily faults) that tend to make him unelectable. As for Hillary - for some reason there has been an odor of skunk fumes about her since BEFORE Bill became president. Vitriolic stickers in public places. Media heads , e.g. Jay Leno deriding her. People constantly saying "Hillary's a phoney (whatever that means)", and I mean people who are liberal and/or progressive on most issues. Look, many years ago I was listening to then Rep. Gerald Ford mumble something about Vietnam. I immediately blurted out "That putz is going to be president one day !!" Now fast forward to about 1 year ago. McCain was practically written out of consideration. I said in one of my darkest moments. "This guy looks presidential (looks like a duck), talks presidential (quacks like a duck), well golly gee whiz, it's gonna be McCain for 8 years !!" G_d forbid, but the railroad train is chugging away. This is a really annoying horse race. I think we need a Democrat in the White House very badly now. Look - we're not Canada (with a recall system) - I wish we were. So, the only weapon is to get the present party voted out when they screw up. Of Clinton & Obama, who is more electable?. I'm not that sure right now.
To which I respectfully respond:
When it comes down to the bottom line, after the primaries are over, and it's McCain vs. the Democrat, who is going to better withstand the right-wing garbage that will rise up out of the AM/FM muck???
After watching how calmly Hillary has handled difficult questions in her debate with Obama, after seeing her easy command of all issues military, health insurance and economic, there is no way that Obama even comes close to her expertise. I think the Right will make mince-meat of him in short order. She, at least, has the confidence of all those good people whose economic condition improved considerably during her husband's tenure. There's a long and very valuable memory track going on there. By contrast, Obama was not such a strong state senator and his failings will be fodder for McCain. Do you know that Obama has campaigned on his so-called record of opposing nuclear energy in his own home state, and yet when you do the research, you find that he FAILED UTTERLY TO ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING IN THAT AREA? His opposition forced him to compromise down the originally rather stringently worded legislation until it had no teeth in it at all, and even then, he could not get it passed? Talk about ineffectiveness! The Times brought this to the attention of his campaign and asked him why he keeps touting this as an accomplishment, when in fact it went nowhere, and there was NO REPLY from his camp.
Gabe, I don't want to see 8 more years of war in Iraq with possible escalation to Iran. We've got to break this chain of military aggression. Obama doesn't have the experience or the know-how to get this done. Hillary does.
The skunk smell you refer to may be emanating from within the nostrils of the beholder, suggested to him/her by the radio demons that permeate the airwaves of middle America. We have to not let those demons affect what WE do.
Pull the lever for Hillary, and at least you won't be responsible for any part of the debacle that could likely result if Obama wins.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Another colossal waste of the Senate's time???
The New York Times has reported that Senator Arlen Specter, the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants the N.F.L. Commissioner to meet with him and then testify before the committee on the reasons for having destroyed the tapes from its investigation into spying by the New England Patriots.
Even though America's greatest collective addiction is watching the annual superbowl, and both the Giants and the Patriots have the loyalest fans in the world, idiocies like this are really upsetting. The Senate has real issues before it - issues like war, the looming recession, unemployment, a country adrift in a moral morass, and THIS is what Senator Arlen Specter wants to waste valuable Senate Judiciary Committee time with???? This is a matter for the football commissioner and, if a crime needs to be investigated, the appropriate local police agencies, or perhaps even the FBI. But the United States Senate? It's utterly absurd! What do YOU think about this?
Even though America's greatest collective addiction is watching the annual superbowl, and both the Giants and the Patriots have the loyalest fans in the world, idiocies like this are really upsetting. The Senate has real issues before it - issues like war, the looming recession, unemployment, a country adrift in a moral morass, and THIS is what Senator Arlen Specter wants to waste valuable Senate Judiciary Committee time with???? This is a matter for the football commissioner and, if a crime needs to be investigated, the appropriate local police agencies, or perhaps even the FBI. But the United States Senate? It's utterly absurd! What do YOU think about this?
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Response to Dawn
A friend of mine sent a serious note to me voicing her concerns and reactions to my last posting. Here are her note and my response to her.
On 2/1/08, Dawn wrote: Thanks Jeff, I'm really not sure whom to vote for this "Super Tuesday". I'm highly concerned about the economic disaster our country is currently facing, in terms of the value of the dollar, the mortgage crisis, and the lack of jobs and the unemployment rate. Also, I want the next President to solve the problem of lack of health care for many Americans, and get us out of this never-ending war in Iraq. I'm not convinced that Hillary will do that for us. She voted in favor of the war originally, and has not properly address her position about why she thought the Iraq war was a good idea at the time, nor will she admit that she was wrong! Bottom line is that Hillary supported President Bush and his Cronies, and I think she needs to give the American people an honest answer. I think it is despicable that the oil companies are experiencing record breaking financial gains, yet Americans can hardly pay there bill at the pump nor afford for the cost of fuel to heat their homes. I'm much more inclined to vote for Obama. Barak is ready to lead this country and will help our country greatly. If the ticket is Barak vs. Romney (like my husband said), you can bet your bottom dollar the new President of the United States will be BARAK OBAMA!
My response:
Hi, Dawn,
First, let's talk about the voting machines.
According to today's Times editorial page (If an Election Is close...), New York State has decided to go with machines which scan in a paper ballot that people have circled in first. The Board of Elections will keep the paper ballots and be able to hand-count them should the need arise. The other machines that other states have purchased and discarded will not be used here. They were made in Holland, and Dutch hackers have already fully demonstrated their hackability. New York State decided against them - late, true enough. But better late than never.
I read with interest your concerns regarding Hillary's Iraq vote and have been considering how best to answer you. However, Bob Herbert's column in today's Times contains a quote from Thomas Paine which I think says it much better than I ever could:
In his biography of Tom Paine, John Keane referred to a pamphlet that Paine had written near the end of his life and said:
"Paine here touched on a quintessential feature of modern republican democracy: it is superior to all other types of government not because it guarantees consensus or even 'good' decisions, but because it enables citizens to reconsider their judgments about the quality and unintended consequences of those decisions.
"Republican democracies enable citizens to think twice and to say no, even to policies to which they once consented."
I think this speaks to Hillary's original decision to support going into Iraq and then saying no later on. We cannot foretell the future, Dawn. No one can. There are so many different roads that history can follow. Given what information they had, those who now want us out of Iraq and who voted to support the president years ago, see the unintended consequences that Paine described above. It is an honorable thing to be able to say: "This isn't what we intended. We have to undo this damage, taking into account the safety of those Iraqis who supported us and others who are our friends." That's Hillary's position. She wants us out within a year, but doesn't want to rip us out completely and instantly which would result in utter havoc in Iraq and a betrayal of those Iraqis who put their faith in us. She says it's a difficult tension but one which, with international support and conciliation, she thinks she can surmount. It's a very responsible position. Does she know EXACTLY how she's going to do this? Neither she nor Barack can know that now because candidates don't have access to the privileged and top secret military information that only a sitting President and his/her cabinet have. But they know the path they want to take. If you know your goal and the general path you want to travel, your chances for success are excellent. Bush's weakness is that his administration never established the long-term path or objectives.
Give Tom Paine his due and don't be so harsh in your judgment of Hillary. Please think carefully before making your selection about who it is that will best be able to defeat the Republican talk show hosts, the hanging chad people, and the Karl Rove types who will surely emerge from their maggot holes once the primary season is over. Who has the experience to stamp out their arguments and their appeal to fear and baser instincts? Who has both the experience and the good will that can trump good will standing alone?
If you Hillary wins, we will have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. If you Barack wins,.....
Jeff
On 2/1/08, Dawn wrote: Thanks Jeff, I'm really not sure whom to vote for this "Super Tuesday". I'm highly concerned about the economic disaster our country is currently facing, in terms of the value of the dollar, the mortgage crisis, and the lack of jobs and the unemployment rate. Also, I want the next President to solve the problem of lack of health care for many Americans, and get us out of this never-ending war in Iraq. I'm not convinced that Hillary will do that for us. She voted in favor of the war originally, and has not properly address her position about why she thought the Iraq war was a good idea at the time, nor will she admit that she was wrong! Bottom line is that Hillary supported President Bush and his Cronies, and I think she needs to give the American people an honest answer. I think it is despicable that the oil companies are experiencing record breaking financial gains, yet Americans can hardly pay there bill at the pump nor afford for the cost of fuel to heat their homes. I'm much more inclined to vote for Obama. Barak is ready to lead this country and will help our country greatly. If the ticket is Barak vs. Romney (like my husband said), you can bet your bottom dollar the new President of the United States will be BARAK OBAMA!
My response:
Hi, Dawn,
First, let's talk about the voting machines.
According to today's Times editorial page (If an Election Is close...), New York State has decided to go with machines which scan in a paper ballot that people have circled in first. The Board of Elections will keep the paper ballots and be able to hand-count them should the need arise. The other machines that other states have purchased and discarded will not be used here. They were made in Holland, and Dutch hackers have already fully demonstrated their hackability. New York State decided against them - late, true enough. But better late than never.
I read with interest your concerns regarding Hillary's Iraq vote and have been considering how best to answer you. However, Bob Herbert's column in today's Times contains a quote from Thomas Paine which I think says it much better than I ever could:
In his biography of Tom Paine, John Keane referred to a pamphlet that Paine had written near the end of his life and said:
"Paine here touched on a quintessential feature of modern republican democracy: it is superior to all other types of government not because it guarantees consensus or even 'good' decisions, but because it enables citizens to reconsider their judgments about the quality and unintended consequences of those decisions.
"Republican democracies enable citizens to think twice and to say no, even to policies to which they once consented."
I think this speaks to Hillary's original decision to support going into Iraq and then saying no later on. We cannot foretell the future, Dawn. No one can. There are so many different roads that history can follow. Given what information they had, those who now want us out of Iraq and who voted to support the president years ago, see the unintended consequences that Paine described above. It is an honorable thing to be able to say: "This isn't what we intended. We have to undo this damage, taking into account the safety of those Iraqis who supported us and others who are our friends." That's Hillary's position. She wants us out within a year, but doesn't want to rip us out completely and instantly which would result in utter havoc in Iraq and a betrayal of those Iraqis who put their faith in us. She says it's a difficult tension but one which, with international support and conciliation, she thinks she can surmount. It's a very responsible position. Does she know EXACTLY how she's going to do this? Neither she nor Barack can know that now because candidates don't have access to the privileged and top secret military information that only a sitting President and his/her cabinet have. But they know the path they want to take. If you know your goal and the general path you want to travel, your chances for success are excellent. Bush's weakness is that his administration never established the long-term path or objectives.
Give Tom Paine his due and don't be so harsh in your judgment of Hillary. Please think carefully before making your selection about who it is that will best be able to defeat the Republican talk show hosts, the hanging chad people, and the Karl Rove types who will surely emerge from their maggot holes once the primary season is over. Who has the experience to stamp out their arguments and their appeal to fear and baser instincts? Who has both the experience and the good will that can trump good will standing alone?
If you Hillary wins, we will have a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. If you Barack wins,.....
Jeff
Friday, February 1, 2008
Political Ruminations
Many well-meaning and intelligent people seem to be in favor of Barack Obama's candidacy. That said, I'd like to make a point. One of the most right-wing papers in New York City, the New York Post, has endorsed Obama. Now why would the Post do that?
It's clear that the Post's editorial writers aren't Democrats and that they loved Bush. It's absolutely clear that they have done the math and they have concluded that the Republicans will likely not prevail against Hillary, but that they have a clear shot against Obama because he has not been tested by time. They consider him to be thin and without much substance.
It was plainly obvious from Thursday night's debate in California that Hillary brings far more experience and knowledge to the table than Barack does. And the cynical truth is that the Post wants nothing more than to keep the Republicans in the White House. Setting up Obama to fall is the best way they can envision to succeed.
Do you remember when Ralph Nader ran against Bush? He also ran against Gore. His supporters took no votes away from the Republicans - but they cost the Democrats the electoral votes necessary to carry the country. Do you really want to repeat this debacle? Supporting Barack is very, very risky - the results of a Republican in the White House will likely cause an eventual reinstatement of the draft. It's inevitable. An interminable war will have to eventually reach out to those citizens who choose not to enlist of their own free will. Those who supported Barack and the Republicans will all be subject to military service with all the horrendous implications of that path. Do you really want to go in that direction? If I were of draftable age (I am not - I am in my 60's), I would be shuddering in my pants at the thought of voting for a weaker democratic candidate. Let Obama wait 8 years. At that point he'll have the experience to be presidential material. He doesn't have it yet. Hillary does. I ask you to seriously consider the long-term implications of an Obama candidacy and to pull the lever for Hillary Clinton.
Peace
El Profe
It's clear that the Post's editorial writers aren't Democrats and that they loved Bush. It's absolutely clear that they have done the math and they have concluded that the Republicans will likely not prevail against Hillary, but that they have a clear shot against Obama because he has not been tested by time. They consider him to be thin and without much substance.
It was plainly obvious from Thursday night's debate in California that Hillary brings far more experience and knowledge to the table than Barack does. And the cynical truth is that the Post wants nothing more than to keep the Republicans in the White House. Setting up Obama to fall is the best way they can envision to succeed.
Do you remember when Ralph Nader ran against Bush? He also ran against Gore. His supporters took no votes away from the Republicans - but they cost the Democrats the electoral votes necessary to carry the country. Do you really want to repeat this debacle? Supporting Barack is very, very risky - the results of a Republican in the White House will likely cause an eventual reinstatement of the draft. It's inevitable. An interminable war will have to eventually reach out to those citizens who choose not to enlist of their own free will. Those who supported Barack and the Republicans will all be subject to military service with all the horrendous implications of that path. Do you really want to go in that direction? If I were of draftable age (I am not - I am in my 60's), I would be shuddering in my pants at the thought of voting for a weaker democratic candidate. Let Obama wait 8 years. At that point he'll have the experience to be presidential material. He doesn't have it yet. Hillary does. I ask you to seriously consider the long-term implications of an Obama candidacy and to pull the lever for Hillary Clinton.
Peace
El Profe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)