A recent letter to the editor of mine was widely misinterpreted, I have discovered. I was using irony when seemingly putting down Hillary Clinton and endorsing Barack Obama -- especially the sentence when I apparently denigrated a woman's competence in handling a budget.
It was my mother, after all, who had the financial savvy in my family, and I regard Clinton as an astute and highly capable woman in her own right to handle all domestic and foreign affairs for our country. Besides, she has her husband at her side with his experience in the presidency that can be a real plus in decision-making.
When I urged the reader to give the inexperienced Obama a chance, I made the point that inexperience can provide us with some rather jolting surprises that we might not welcome, such as we have realized to our utter dismay during the surprising debacles of the present administration. George W. Bush presented himself as a fresh face in Washington, who loved to dress up as a lone cowboy, but has subsequently alienated most of our friends abroad and also to deck himself out in a flak jacket to parade as a Great Decider and commander-in-chief, who has now entangled our country in a never-ending, disastrous and treasury-draining war.
Though I seemed to be endorsing inexperience, I was doing just the opposite. I think we need the cautious approach to government that I see in Hillary Clinton for the tumultuous years ahead, rather than the rah-rah rhetoric of an inexperienced icon who seems to have a strong appeal mainly to the young and the limousine liberals in our party.