Your Voice | Letters

A poor endorsement

To the Editor:

While I understand that the editorial board is free to endorse whom it wants, I was disappointed to see its endorsement of Senator Hillary Clinton go without a serious examination of her record. For example, the editorial noted Clinton "helped to expand children's health insurance."

However, the legislators who crafted the bill to create the S-CHIP program - Sens. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) - do not recall her playing an active role in passing the legislation.

Furthermore, the editorial cites Senator Clinton's experience in the Senate as "giving her a better understanding of how Washington works." However, during her seven-year tenure in the Senate, she has failed to author a single piece of landmark legislation.

Her opponent, Senator Barack Obama, has already passed a landmark transparency bill during his shorter time in the Senate - the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, a law he co-sponsored with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).

In closing, I am disappointed that the editorial board chose to cite vague generalities as to why they are supporting Senator Clinton.

A closer examination of her record would reveal that her 35 years of experience add up to significantly less.

Asuka Nakamura Wharton senior Making change happen

To the Editor:

Thank you for giving each candidate an "op-ed" last week. This has been an amazing presidential race, as you've witnessed on campus, and I've witnessed as a volunteer in three states and Pennsylvania. I've seen the 72-year-old black man proudly wearing a political button (Obama '08) for the first time in his life - and the white 17-year-old dragging her mom to a Hillary Clinton phone bank 15 miles from home.

But while race and gender matter, their two contrasting visions of "change" may be more crucial.

Hillary defines change as moving away from the Bush-Cheney years: for example, changing the agenda from tax cuts to universal health care. Barack Obama defines change as moving away from politics as usual: pushing aside "special interests."

Here is the unfashionable case for policy change and against "process-centered" change. First, you need allies within the system to make enormous policy changes, like universal health care, and you can't simultaneously use them and attack them. The president will struggle to get his or her agenda through Congress, as both Carter and Bill Clinton struggled when they had large Democratic majorities. When you attack Washington, it fights back - and your policy agenda suffers.

Second, making fundamental change in the political process is hard. While you can build a political campaign on changing Washington, you can't keep those same voters focused on hard-to-understand reforms in campaign finance, congressional ethics and lobbying laws. It just doesn't directly affect their lives.

I'm in Pennsylvania to work for the candidate who will focus on universal health care, getting us out of Iraq, attacking global warming and combating the recession. Even if she can do only those things, that would be real change.

Larry Field The author is a 1976 FAS alumnus and former DP Executive Editor An international look

To the Editor:

I am a Penn alumna who is now working abroad with clients from all over the world. What is the international perspective on the race? Overwhelmingly, the abilities and personal authenticity of Obama are inspiring and exciting people abroad about the USA! People over here are baffled by Clinton's so-called "Experience" argument. The two projects she had full control over - healthcare and her campaign, have been disasters.

Obama, on the other hand, has proved in his campaign the ability to turn an overwhelmingly challenging and complex situation into a winner. Which one of those is needed in the White House? Clinton is unfortunately seen by many abroad as a dishonest political manipulator. Few believe she can revive America's international role, as she promised in her Tuesday column. In contrast, people are impressed by Obama and by the passion of his grassroots support. He has the inspiring qualities of the statesman we need to get breakthroughs in international negotiations.

He is showing that America still has a dream: one based in reality, but with excitement and potential for the future.

Hilary Moore The author is a 2004 alumna and former DP columnist Obama has the necessary experience

To the Editor:

I'm open-minded. I'm willing to concede defeat. But what angers me about your endorsement ("Our Primary picks," 4/17/08) is not your choice, but rather your reasoning.

You posit that Clinton has suggested "how we can" change the country in a more definitive manner than Senator Obama. I suggest in turn that you read Obama's Web site (barackobama.com) for his policies, which are as thoroughly detailed as Clinton's.

Choosing a president is risky. Given our lack of true knowledge about candidates, we must always choose based on some degree of, well, hope. Obama has brought that hope to the forefront of national politics in a far more compelling manner than Clinton.

And her supposedly pragmatic ability to implement policy is as unproven as Obama's. The measure of experience you attribute to her is an exaggeration; her background in corporate law does not measure up well to that of Obama, who has spent his entire career in public service, beginning with his days as a community organizer in Chicago.

You suggest, "Obama could one day be a remarkable president."

I am disappointed in your lack of understanding "the fierce urgency of now," as Obama states in quoting Dr. Martin Luther King.

Eben Lazarus College freshman

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.