Clinton has many merits, but should not be Obama's running mate

Clinton has many merits, but should not be Obama’s running mate
Many of us have long admired Hillary Clinton. She is an American icon and a role model to many, but she should not be Obama’s vice presidential candidate. Clinton would put an end to Republicans’ ambivalence toward McCain. She has long been demonized by the conservative right, and her presence on the ballot would mobilize its foot soldiers.

With our country mired in two wars abroad, a failing economy, rising gas prices, diminishing civil liberties, and looming environmental disasters, too much is on the line to rally the right-wing base. Concerns about “Hillary Democrats” not voting for Obama are overstated.

Clinton’s supporters will soon learn that voting for McCain is against their interests. Women won’t migrate to McCain, whose slippery stance on Roe v. Wade would likely cost them their right to choose. Nor will blue-collar workers elect another Republican who embraces NAFTA and dismisses unions’ concerns. And Democrats will not back McCain’s decision to stay the course indefinitely in Iraq.

It’s true that Clinton’s supporters wanted a different outcome, but they will not elect McCain simply to register their disappointment. Obama won the nomination because of his vision of a new America. It is not simply a call for much-needed policy change, but also for a change in party politics and a rethinking of the role of special interest groups. With Obama’s appeal grounded in promise of change, he risks undermining his message with Clinton, a member of the old guard, as his running mate.

Obama should pick someone who will help him win, who complements his message and style, and who he wants at his side as he navigates the challenges he will surely face during his presidency. For all her strengths, that someone is not Clinton.

Vanessa Scanfield
New York, N.Y.

Rogers helping lead U.S. down path of continued oil dependence

Our Representative Mike Rogers thinks the “first step” in reducing our dependence on foreign oil is to drill for more oil at home.

Rogers assumes 86 billion barrels are untapped on the Outer Continental Shelf and the Gulf of Mexico, but ignores the fact that it’s not all “drillable.”

But let’s assume he’s right for a minute. Why should we continue investing in this old technology for 12 years worth of energy?

In 12 years, Rogers will be out of office and we’ll be out of oil. Rogers claims to be an environmentalist by proposing more nuclear power plants. However, nowhere in his article does he propose energy conservation. There are two sides to the energy equation: supply and demand. Rogers only proposes increasing supply and works to defeat policies that decrease demand.

It’s probably only coincidence that Rogers received $77,900 from the oil and gas industry between 2003-2006, and then voted “No” on HR2776, a clean energy incentives tax package that would have eliminated $16 billion in tax loopholes for big oil and gas that would have been used to fund alternative energy technologies. I expect our leaders in Washington to lead. Instead, Rogers is leading us down a dead-end path of continued oil dependence.

The U.S. needs to fund alternative energies now. In fact, we missed a golden opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil after Sept. 11, choosing instead to instigate a war with a country that possesses the world’s second largest supply of oil. Wouldn’t it be better to fund a “Manhattan Project” to blaze the way for new energy?

Isn’t that what “leadership” is supposed to do? If the U.S. doesn’t take the lead by investing in new technology and conservation programs, we can expect to be left behind as leaders in the world.

Mike Mulvaney
Auburn