Eliot wrote:

This is some chatter I had with a freind of mine who would prefer to remain anonymous:

Eliot wrote:

Well so far you and Miller are the only Democrats to enter the fray that have had anything interesting to say.

My Republican cousins (who have a lot of Democratic friends) have a blog where the rest of this dialoge will continue, I'll send you link. Although you might not agree with them I think my cousin Jon's (Jon was an educator and part of the '60s left in Madison WI after he left Harvard. His divorce from the left occurred shortly thereafter) commentary made a lot of very specific and cogent points regarding Obama and Clinton's primary contests.

There were certainly things about HC's positions that I found unappealing, the gas tax holiday was really off-base, but from my centrist perspective she's been a good senator, and would have made a trustworty president. I would have voted for her in a race against McCain. My main concerns about Obama are his relationship with Wright and his "soft" position on foreign policy. I think Obama's an intelligent, well meaning man who if we weren't engaged in long term war against determined enemies with no scruples could have made a good leader for this country.

But mostly I'm offended (and mystified) by his continued patronage of Wright's church after the 9/11 diatribe. To maintain a presence in that congregation is an egregious, inexcusable breach of trust and reliability for anyone who would claim to represent a broad constituency as president. Whether or not I vote against Obama in November as an Independent will depend on how much McCain plays to the Republican base and how close the race seems at the end. If I feel the need to send a message to the Democrats that I've been given the cold shoulder I will.

----- Original Message -----

From [Anonymous at writer's request]

I don't get the sense that you guys are actually Democrats, a lot of the people in this exchange are Republicans. Whatever, I voted for Clinton in the New York primary, but lately she's been pissing me off ("obliterate Iran"; her talk about her support among hard working whites; the whole under fire thing in Bosnia as misspeaking; that she would sit down at a table with Richard Mellon-Scaife, and be interviewed for his scum paper-it's all too much). There is also some recent hanky panky with Bill greasing the way for an individual to get oil exploratiion rights in Kazakstan that was only reported in the Times, but not seen again. Stuff like that will occur more and more.

------------------------------------------

A post on Talking Points Memo has this:

Never Thought I'd Say It

How far off track is Hillary's campaign? It's so bad even Peggy Noonan is making sense, painful as that is to say.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121027865275678423.html?mod=opinion_columns_featured_lsc

----------------------------------------------------------

I have no problem with Obama. Well limited problems, his health plan isn't as inclusive (and therefore economically practical as Clintons). He's not the progressive that everyone thinks he is. The most liberal member of the Senate thing, is I think cooked up to get the right in a tizzy about him. Or more likely the Reagan Democrats in a tizzy. Being dependent on the black vote isn't such a bad thing. It's not like they aren't as good votes or something. He also takes the educated voters. The national may well play different than the primaries.

If the right can demonize him, make him seem unmanly ala Dukakis then they can reframe the race. Cause if they run on McCain's merits they've got not much.

McCain has no health plan to speak of. He'd like to dissolve the Veterans Administration's plan; He thinks the judiciary has been activist, while the President has been exerting the divine right of kings. He also associates with a right wing nut minister, who he sought out for support, and won't repudiate (Hagee). His wife refuses to release her taxes, and they are very wealthy -mostly her money. For all the torture issues that surround McCain, he refuses to repudiate it.

He is surrounded by lobbyists but says that he is unaffected by them. He gamed the Federal Election system to get money out of it, but so far has avoided action by them, because they lack a board member to act (the President has to put one on and he won't).

Oh, McCain will appoint more rightist judges to the court. Great just fucking great. More national security nightmare. Voted to suspend Habeas.

There was a particular piece of blather that I wanted to address in one of those emails:

> Obama (victory speech on Tuesday)
> I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness,
> but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like
> Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.
>
> You know, that Roosevelt whose famous 'talk' with Hitler and Tojo
> consisted of two words -- "Unconditional Surrender." Or Kennedy, who sat
> down to shmooze at a picnic with Castro in the Bay of Pigs, made nice
> phone calls to Khrushchev one fine October (1962), and enjoyed tea and
> crumpets with the Diems of Vietnam. Then of course there is my
> pal Harry, whose "conversational wisdom" with the Emperor of the Sun was
> on full display on August, 6 and 9, 1945. If Obama is going down this
> road, I will be happy for him to "talk" away with our enemies. As long
> as he can just keep his wife quiet, that is.

Kennedy denied necessary air support during the Bay of Pigs. Ordered the CIA to murder Castro (a fact that was covered up during the Warren Commission and beyond). Kennedy did make contact with Khrushchev during the missle crisis. It's what saved the world. It was Khrushchev's proposal that ultimately prevailed in the end result. As well a set of phones were installed to talk to our enemy. They were called The Hot Line, so the leaders of the nuclear powers could easily talk in the event of conflict.

Diem in Vietnam, we had murdered.

I'm reading a good book these days. It's called Legacy of Ashes ( ISBN 9780385514453 ), it's a history of the CIA.

Hope you and yours are doing well