Letters to the Editor
scotjohn
Published Letters: 26 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Yes, the polls show a gap -- why?
[Read the article: Can Obama get the Latino vote?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't heard a convincing explanation yet as to why Latino voters seem to be skewing toward Clinton. You mentioned the theory that Latinos are familiar with the Clintons, but haven't had a chance to become familiar with Obama yet.
But why would that be an issue unique to Latinos? Why would they have had less exposure to Obama than, for example, under-30 white voters (who are showing a strong preference for Obama)? That doesn't make sense to me.
Has anyone done a survey of Latino voters asking their opinions of all candidates in the race?
-
Anonymous Clintonites and electability
[Read the article: Sweet home Chicago]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Isn't it funny that all the Clinton supporters here are anonymous rather than regular Salon users?
And their "Clinton is more electable" argument is ridiculous. Think about it:
-- Obama inspires far more first-time Democratic voters
-- Independents strongly favor Obama over Clinton
-- Republicans hate Clinton with a white-hot passion, not Obama
How much clearer does it get?
The Pollsters That Be are about to start polling "McCain vs Obama" and "McCain vs Clinton" matchups, and when those results come in, it'll start sinking in to more and more people: Obama's our strongest contender come November.
-
Think November
[Read the article: Clinton gets her party started]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Maybe Clinton is more popular in die-hard blue states like Massachusetts and New York. Then again, so was Dukakis.
Independents are preferring Obama by wide margins. We're seeing waves of first-time voters turning out for Obama. And while McCain fractures the Republican base, nothing unites and motivates them like Hillary Clinton -- while I'm watching former Republican friends crossing the aisle to support Obama.
Being a feminist, I judge the candidates not by their gender but by the content of their campaigns, and our best hope for a Democrat in the White House is Obama.
-
Buying 3 metric tons of locally-grown, organic rhubarb!
[Read the article: What will YOU do with your fiscal stimulus check?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seriously, though, it's the IRA vs. savings debate...
Argument for IRA: $1200 contribution means yet more tax savings, potential for long-term growth assuming the Dow never pulls a Nikkei *ahem, cough*.
Argument for savings: If the economy tanks and I get laid off, I'm not eligible for unemployment insurance since I work for a nonprofit organization (thanks, enlightened Georgia state law!) so I may need to keep that money handy.
-
Enough with the videos!
[Read the article: Which Democrat can beat McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Transcript please?
-
Suspicious of pollsters' crystal balls?
[Read the article: Obama campaign plays up electability against McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's look at hard evidence then -- VOTES.
In the primaries so far, who have self-described independents voted for? Obama. He's getting their votes over Clinton by huge margins. That's real evidence we can't afford to ignore.
McCain is the other candidate independents have been voting for, and if you want to sway those people away from McCain, you'll need to offer them someone else they actively like. They're showing by their votes that Obama best fits that description.
This is not John Kerry part deux. In 2004 we didn't see anything remotely close to this groundswell of votes from new and independent voters -- we lacked solid evidence about electability back then, we were reading political tea leaves. This year we're watching independents actually get out and vote in large numbers, and they're overwhelmingly casting their votes for Obama.
And what do you know -- the polls back this evidence up. (The difference between him and Clinton IS statistically significant in nearly all of these polls, it's greater than the poll's margin of error.)
-
Video overload!
[Read the article: Can Hillary Clinton come back?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't understand why Salon's editors seem to be pushing video content throughout the site.
Read any Web usability survey and you'll find that Web users like to scan content quickly. Videos aren't scannable, so replacing perfectly good text content with video slows your users down. And users hate it when you make it harder to get the content they want.
Video works best when it provides content that simply doesn't work in a text format -- but if text can convey the information just fine, it's usually superior. And this particular video says nothing that text couldn't say more quickly.
If I wanted video, I'd watch TV.
-
Why the reluctance to post a transcript?
[Read the article: The Castro effect]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What exactly would Salon lose by posting a transcript of these videos?
A transcript would take, what, 5 minutes to post? You just copy-and-paste the speech that Salon staffers clearly already typed up and are reading on the video.
You're ignoring your users' requests, and I can only think of one reason -- Salon has some kind of cross-promotion contract with Current, and it stipulates "no transcripts." Am I close?
-
Is it just me...
[Read the article: Everything you were afraid to ask about "Battlestar Galactica" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...or is McCain scarily reminiscent of Col. Tigh? It's not just the short-tempered, white-haired, former POW thing either -- they're both weirdly sympathetic characters somehow. But God help us if one of them gets control of the ship.
-
Attention Salon. Stop cherry-picking your evidence.
[Read the article: Attention, pundits. It ain't over]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People waiting in line to hear Hillary Clinton say they're glad the race isn't over yet?
Stop the presses! What an incredible revelation!
-
McCain: wage disparity exists because women lack "education and training"
[Read the article: The fight for fair pay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Senator McCain didn't just fail to vote on the bill -- he said publicly that women "need education and training" rather than the kind of legal protection against discrimination that the bill would have provided.
How come we're not seeing THAT in the media's headlines? The MSM usually seems to crave that sort of controversy.
-
Thanks for this
[Read the article: What does Hillary want?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is the kind of story that got me hooked on Salon 10 years ago -- real, relevant political/policy insights not being reported elsewhere, from someone who knows what they're talking about. More please!