Kirsten Powers correctly characterizes the level of discourse in the Democratic race as nonstop bickering, but she fails to identify the root cause: Neither of the leading candidates has anything of substance to say (“Non-stop Bickering,” PostOpinion, Jan. 21).
Aside from being a singularly meddlesome first lady, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton‘s political experience is limited to lying about her husband’s philandering and gulling NY Democrats into putting her in the Senate, where she has accomplished nothing of note.
Sen. Barack Obama‘s record is similarly undistinguished and untainted by meaningful relevant experience.
He has, however, performed a valuable service by exposing Clinton’s claim of experience as a fraud.
So bring on the bickering, name-calling and sniping. That is as close to the truth as this contest will get.
David Coffey
Manhattan
The contest for the Democratic presidential nomination is heating up and so is the bicker quotient.
The nominee will be either Obama or Clinton as John Edwards, the foaming populist channeling Huey Long, is finished.
I say: Go ahead and bicker. Bicker all you want. We expect it, and some of us like it.
Paul Bloustein
Cincinnati
How do the Democrats expect to get along with other countries when they can’t get along with themselves?
These candidates are unfit to govern.
Joe DePascale
Brooklyn
While the Republican candidates have been somewhat muted in their attacks on each other, their Democratic opponents have been firing broadsides about each other’s pasts.
This will ensure that whoever the Democratic standard-bearer turns out to be, he or she will be forced to bear the burden of handling the allegations put forth by his or her Democratic adversaries when challenged by the Republican nominee.
It looks like we’re in for a no-holds-barred campaign.
Emil Maricondo
Brooklyn
It seems that what lies beneath the surface with Clinton and Obama is more important than the state of this union (It’s Me Against Billary,” Jan. 21).
Why not let two high-school kids run for the highest office in the land? These two candidates can’t compose themselves long enough to say anything truly meaningful.
This dynamic may be too complicated for the American public to deal with when so much is at stake.
This is too much about personality and not enough about policy.
The voters will be the ones crying next if either of these two dysfunctional candidates gets the nomination.
Theodore Miraldi
The Bronx
I suspect that Bill Clinton’s political critiques and jabs at Obama’s campaign is just Clinton, the politician, playing the “good cop-bad cop” scenario to take the heat off of Hillary (“The Bill Factor,” Rich Lowry, PostOpinion, Jan. 22).
Whether in a political war or a real war, a commander-in-chief should be able to bluff her hand. My opinion is that Hillary deserves to occupy the White House.
Susan Marie Davniero
Lindenhurst, NJ
Former President Bush never attacked his son’s opponents on his behalf but, being that Clinton mentioned himself 87 times in a recent speech about his wife’s candidacy, his vehement assault on Obama is not surprising.
Having recently said that he “always opposed” the Iraq war after once saying that he “always supported” it, this man, who once reneged on a middle-class tax-cut promise right after he was elected, shouldn’t be the one to question anybody else’s credibility.
As for his wife, if Hillary can’t handle Obama on her own, how is she going to handle our adversaries if she gets elected?
Gary Mottola
Brooklyn
Perhaps Obama is suprised because he has just discovered that the Clintons are adjudicated liars, but it’s hardly a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.
What’s next – no Easter Bunny?
The truth is that neither candidate is presidential timber.
Otis Glazebrook
Southampton
It is supremely rich that former President Clinton, who happens to be white, is complaining that a campaign led by a black man is attempting to suppress the vote.
Louis Lombardi
Staten Island
