I'm not a good complainer.  For me to send food back at a restaurant, for example, there needs to be movement on the plate.  Or something fecal. 

So I only wrote a letter to the L.A. Times because, as I'm eating my bowl of Kellogg's Yogos,  their editorial was laying on my table like a big crusty turd.  They applauded Senator Clinton for morphing into an anti-war candidate, "For Democrats, Clinton's dialing-up of her opposition to the war may mean that they will have to choose between her and other would-be nominees - Obama included - on other grounds.  That could be a positive development."

We've got this fiasco in Iraq, which Clinton supported, and the Times thinks it would be a shame if her poor judgment worked against her in a Presidential campaign.  Let her reinvent herself, and then let's choose a candidate based on issues more pressing than THE WAR.  What those might be, I don't know, but on her website Senator Clinton boasts that, "In the 109th Congress, I became the senior Democrat on the Fisheries, Wildlife and Water subcommittee."  So the Times wants us to turn a blind eye to the clusterfuck in IRAQ and let Senator Clinton ride the resurgence of the walleye trout all the way to the White House. 

Why would the newspaper embarrass itself like this?  In a roundabout way, they are staking out an anti-Obama position.  They point out that Obama is "exploiting" his comments from 2002 that the war to topple Saddam was "dumb and rash."  The Times snidely points out that Obama "has the luxury of not having been in the Senate in 2002."  WTF?  A Senator has the power and the platform to combat an errant and incompetent Executive Branch.  That is the luxury that most Americans envy.   Twenty three Senators had the moxie to vote against the use of force in Iraq.  This wasn't Pearl Harbor, Senator Clinton had a choice.

Anyway, I wrote the letter and they printed it and I know it makes me look like a cranky guy with too much time on his hands but that's what I am so there.

For the record, I wrote:

The Times sees Senator Clinton's newfound opposition to the Iraq War as
"a positive development" since voters would have to choose between her
and Senator Obama "on other grounds."  This assumes that voters will
forget that during the rush to war, when history was calling for bold
voices of opposition, Senator Clinton strongly endorsed one of the
greatest follies in this country's history.  Her vote was clearly made
with future political ambitions in mind.  Well, the future is now, and
her "scrambling to get on what her party's primary voters deem the
right side of history" is as unseemly and offensive as the daily
headlines coming out of Iraq.

Rocky Petralia
Westwood, CA

"Man, I wish I had the luxury of not being here."

Epiphany - Everybody calls the Times a "liberal" paper.  But it's really an "establishment" paper.   They hate the outsider above all else.  They love the politician that's been around, has a lot of political IOUs and can't rock the boat.  Look how terrified the were when Arnold first ran for governor.  They ran front page stories about sexual improprieties, just days before the election, that made a typical Hollywood jerk sound like a serial rapist.  They defended their much criticized series claiming it proved him unfit for public office.  Fine.  But two years later, two years of Arnold taking in more special interest money than anybody in state history, THEY ENDORSED the clod, against a mainstream, competent Democrat.  What the hell?  In those two years did he UNMOLEST all those secretaries?  Nope, the Times just likes a guy who has sold out to the system.  Apparently, Obama is not there yet.  Now the paper is going after him.