Letter to the editor:

Obama, Clinton not in McCain’s league

Glen J. Gillette, Las Vegas

Thu, May 1, 2008 (2:02 a.m.)

Several letters from the Saturday and Sunday editions of the Las Vegas Sun cry out for responses from me.

Richard J. Mundy states several reasons why he thinks nobody should support John McCain’s bid for the presidency, then asks, “How can any intelligent person support McCain’s bid for the presidency?” My answer to that: Look at the alternatives.

James J. Poupard lists several reasons, from his observations, why Bush does not deserve even the 28 percent approval rating he has received. He then states, “A 28 percent approval rating? Why?” My response is that not everyone sees the situation through cracked glasses. Again, consider what might have been.

Leopold A. Potsiadlo says he used to savor every word that columnist Maureen Dowd wrote, “as if they were delicious pieces of chocolate to be slowly dissolved and appreciated. However, her recent columns berating the Clintons have become increasingly distasteful, as reflected in her latest commentary appearing in the Sun, shouting with childlike behavior, in effect, ‘Go away, Hillary, Go away!’” When she writes what he wants to read, he “savors” it. When she doesn’t, he castigates her as being “distasteful” and “childlike.”

Clinton has often said she is “the most experienced,” which raises the question: At what? Perhaps she is referring to dodging bullets in Bosnia.

Barack Obama occasionally comes out with something worthwhile, but is most often content to just repeat, “Change we can believe in.”

I have honestly tried to imagine either of them as commander in chief, but it just doesn’t fit.

If the phone rings at 3 a.m. in the White House, I want John McCain with his military experience to answer it.

Hillary has further stated that she “will be the president, not Bill.” She would be president in name only; Bill would certainly be the de facto president.

Discussion: 4 comments so far…

By mschaffer

5/1/08 at 6:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

McCain?
The loser who was shot down in Vietnam, then corrupted by business people in Arizona (remember the Keating five?), and who's sanity is in question? The one who has accepted the endorsement by a bigoted preacher (Hagee)? The one who thinks another hundred years of occupation is a good idea? That McCain? I'll stick with the smarter and more principled candidates on the Democratic side thank you very much.
By NVMakz

5/1/08 at 7:42 a.m.

Suggest removal

"Smarter and more principled"??

Obama: the slick (Slick Barry?), racist-mentored / pastored uber-socialist (#1 liberal in Senate), economy-wrecking political puppy who has his first foreign endorsement - from the Pres. of IRAN?

Hillary: the most "finger in the wind", canned/staged, shrill-auntie - divisive uber-communist candidate who almost most (mid-to-high 40%s would never vote for her?) would rather give themselves brain surgery with a wooden spoon than see President?

McCain is a towering paragon of political gravitas compared to the two political frauds and liars the DemocRATS are running this year.

Anyway, the DemocRATS will be destroying themselves in Denver - for many years - alienating either blacks or women in their quest to serve up who will lose to McCain in November.
By AgMallard

5/1/08 at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Any credibility McCain may have garnered for his years of service in the Senate was totally squandered when this “maverick” proved to be one of Bush’s most reliable yes-men. When talking about someone that places political expediency and personal gain ahead of fair rational public policy formulation, be sure to include McCain’s last 7 years.
By NVMakz

5/1/08 at 4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Funny that McCain has stood in Bush's way - to the liberal's delight - on too many important issues during the whole of Bush's term. Too many!

"Yes man" - hardly.

Still, with so-called squandered credibility = McCain has truckloads more than the two lib-socialist liars and frauds running from the "MoveOn/Code Pink" party this time around.