To the editor:
Having just had a chance to hear Elizabeth Warren in Hollis and Tulsi Gabbard at Franklin Pierce University I’ve decided that either would make a great president, but there’s a big difference. Elizabeth Warren is ready for a fight. She’s got plans for everything, and she comes across as the kind of energetic, passionate, even ferocious leader who, fullback-like, could hurtle herself into the pack of burly front-line defenders of the status quo and by sheer force of will, push across the line of scrimmage for a first down.
“We’re gonna have so much fun!” she repeated several times. She wants revolution: tax the rich at a higher rate in order to pay for things like early-childhood care and education, free college for all, and universal healthcare. If the Republicans want to try to stop her, watch out!
Tulsi Gabbard is cut from a different cloth. Where Warren is pugnacious, Gabbard is gracious. Watching her speak, you also feel the passion for her ideas, but unlike Warren who’s ready to take the gloves off as she steps into the ring, with Gabbard in charge, you might not even need a ring – you get the feeling she mightjust charm her way past her opposition as she gets her bills passed. With her big smile and open, honest demeanor any American would be proud to have her representing our country to foreign dignitaries. She’d be a breath of fresh air after the three years of hot air we’ve had to deal with coming from Washington. Both women would fight for what they see as the way forward, both are forceful, impassioned… but will it be the cold fist or the warm handshake? Consider them both, carefully, at their websites.
Dale Coye
Wilton