Letters to the Editor
Uncle Fester
Published Letters: 1346 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Hope gap and letters
[Read the article: Obama, Clinton and the black-brown divide]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan, an interesting article. I'd be keen have an expansion on this portion:
Gaspard [..] said that although many on the left tried to get a jump on this year, "The candidates who are running right now don't have the vocabulary to address these issues. The important work that needed to happen on the ground hasn't happened."
What does Gaspard mean? Is he talking about a media to express new concepts, or a repackaging of existing thoughts? When I look at our society, I think part of the problem is that we already have many vocabularies, many of them inconsistent with each other. One faction picks the dialect they want in order to gain advantage over the others. I'm skeptical and curious at the same time.
On the letters topic, I'm finding myself in agreement with ZipCascade and wondering if the journalism here isn't shading a tad yellow. Some of it, particularly headlines, does seem like throwing red meat into a shark tank. No suprise what happens then. For example, I found the "darkening" story to be pointless, yet incendiary speculation.
Maybe I'm just projecting and need to resend this letter to Carry instead. I know that Salon is partially in a no-win situation and a large part of this is just human tribal crap coming to the surface and it will blow over at somepoint, hopefully way before november. And I'm not into censorship. But if you look at the current thread from 'Some free advice for Obama', it's pretty toxic. I really only have a problem with one poster there, mainly for his inability to be civil and respond faithfully and constructively. He must have a rather large spleen. There are certainly other idiots for sure, maybe I'm one of them at times. I'm sure everyone else will have a different list of trolls. But I think if one or two folks tone it down a notch, things will be in much better shape. We might engage in an exchange of ideas.
-
Caucuses
[Read the article: Obama takes Wyoming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The caucus hasn't flown under the radar. It just made more sense in earlier agrian small-town America where everyone had basicly the same job (the farm) and the same hours, and they could ride the horse buggy into town to vote in the evening. Maybe that's why it still has so much appeal in Iowa. Now we're mostly urban and mostly 24/7, so it doesn't fit as well.
And we should remember that Obama's win streak includes primary states like Washington, Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin. An Obama campaign memo leaked to bloomberg shows that the Obama camp is implementing a 50 state strategy. I don't call that cynical, I call that smart. How else is he supposed win against someone with huge brand name recognition and backing?
-
@KateTex: Caucuses and Winning
[Read the article: Obama takes Wyoming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Far be it from me to defend the prima-caucus in Texas. And it's kinda scary that citizens don't know how to vote in their own state. At least they are paying attention now. I wouldn't have any problems with the caucus being eliminated. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record here (a dated phrase), but there's something more going on then young college age voters going to the polls.
According to MSNBC, Obama had 11 offices in Wisconsin, Hillary had 4. Obama had a bigger ground game in WY as well. This situation repeats itself in many states. Obama has done this enough times to have the lead in popular vote and delegates, at least for now. Hillary does well when she plans ahead and decides to show up and campaign (CA for example).
If I take a realpolitik position (which ignores the morality of primaries vs. caucuses), which is supposed to be a specialty of Hillary Clinton, I have to ask, why the candidate who claims to be more experienced in politics, and more reality based, is losing all these elections to someone who is new to the national stage? The answer is her strategy and her ground game. Hillary didn't take these states seriously, just like a lot of other democratic establishment types who still doubt the 50 state strategy. From the school of hard knocks position, complaining the other side won because more people turned out sounds like whinning. Hillary should've had a plan to attract those younger votes; especially since she protrays herself as the queen of plans.
The badass realpolitik candidate can't be the victim of arcane voting practices and punk kids. If she's the victim, she's not badass and not realpolitik. I think she's badass, but she (and Bill and Mark Penn) got outmanuvered. Now they have to play hardball to pull something out.
-
Making their choice (on the best brand names in stock!)
[Read the article: Obama, Clinton and the black-brown divide]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think we can say succinctly that since Hillary is not hispanic, and since the hispanic vote is not going for her in the same numbers the black vote is going for Obama (statistically almost 100%) that for the hispanics they are making their choice on intelligent reasoning such as past performance rather than the emotional bigotry that blacks so obviously are. -- ShawnWM
Corporate America spends billions per year on brand name advertising in defiance of intelligent reasoning.
-
LBJ and MLK
[Read the article: Obama takes Wyoming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama's supporters, by lambasting Hillary's MLK comment, an historically accurate statement making no racial point whatsoever.
This statement got a lot of reaction, but you can't 'blame' all the 'negativity' on Obama supporters. A lot of non-Obama supporters were not happy to hear her comment either. Hillary stepped in doo when she made it. I don't think it was politically astute at all to remind African Americans that they were dependent on a white person to make 'real' changes, no matter how historically accurate. MLK is a mythical figure now and you critique him and his legacy at your own peril. Aside from the fact that Hillary is no LBJ in terms of senate achievement and connections to Texas Oil, it was a mistake to imply that the same dependency relationship applies today.