Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Not enough for rageaholics
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you can only support your own candidate by competely trashing the others and their supporters to such an extreme you imply, and perhaps believe, there is no compromise or even common ground, then this speech will not be enough.
Because actual civics mean nothing, the election is just a catharsis for your own anxieties and resentments.
Which means you will ignore the point of the speech. You will spout nitpicks of dubious validity, or say it's a good speech but keep on with overblown rhetoric about how Clinton/Obama can't win because they are something evil or wrong.
Which means you are choosing to retreat to your corners and get nothing done.
This buys into a politics of divisiveness fostered by a powerful few with their own interests at heart. A toxic policy which McCain and far too many of his supporters embrace because they benefit.
Keep up with the spew and this will still reign, no matter who wins.
-
Joan - it would be better if you could just admit your preference.
[Read the article: Moving beyond Obama and race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are so transparent. If you really didn't think it was important, you wouldn't have spent an entire column repeating the phrase over and over and over and then made a video about it.
Just say you are for Clinton. It's okay. Put it out in the open.
I think either one of them would make a viable candidate, but only if their supporters stop with the disingenuous bullcrap.
I wish you spent as much time dissecting John McCain, or calling out the reporters who worship him, as you do making excuses for Hilary and sniping at Obama. If you did, then your personal leanings wouldn't matter as much. Then Salon would be an alternative to the mainstream instead of a disappointing faux-alt echo of it.
-
Ugh. Boring and trifling
[Read the article: The best-laid plans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The point of this twee twaddle is Sloane Crosley is a pretty young thing who works as a publicist for a major publisher and knows how to work connections, but, surprise, when she's not flacking or reviewing she's got very little to say. If this collection of wispy non-events is any evidence, her book must be a nearly obscene example of a comfortable privileged life inflated to book length.
She takes SEVEN paragraphs to describe a failed eight word pickup line in a library.
I'm sure executive types find her ability to spin wittily about
banal experiences refreshing, but if I'm going to read self-obsessed anecdotes, I want a hot mess like Elizabeth Wurtzel. This makes Prozac Nation seem like freaking Balzac. Sloane is the anti-Wurtzel - trying to seem dynamic in her complete lack of shading. It's excruciating.
And that's probably why she's got a book - on Riverhead, no less, which really seems enamored of the bankable white girls. Of course she's smarter than Margaret Seltzer and writes about stuff which is beyond verification. What evidence can there be of not hooking up with a guy in a library?
Except there's her claim to have a spatial learning disability. Gawker has expressed doubt about this though it's all speculation: http://gawker.com/news/diagnoses/whats-really-wrong-with-sloane-crosley-327295.php
Funny how she doesn't mention it in this essay.
-
The Poll is being misread.
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In all of the back and forth, here is the most important problem with this poll, which Joan only mentions parenthetically:
"(One limit of the poll is that voters weren't asked if they would support a black or a woman president, only if they think others would.)"
This poll is about what people assume about other voters, not how they'd vote themselves.
So it does NOT reveal if Americans are more ready for one or the other. IT ONLY SHOWS THOSE BEING POLLED THINK OTHER PEOPLE ARE MORE SEXIST THAN RACIST.
Which I think is a good thing. In fact it might mean the exact opposite of what Joan tries to argue. People are paying attenton to the sexist attacks on Clinton and it does disturb them more than the racist attacks on Obama, to the point they believe the country is too sexist to elect her.
This is still not a good thing for Clinton, since people make assumptions based on electability. But it does mean people do recognize the obstacles she's against, and they may not think it's right.
It is also not a good thing for Obama, because it might mean people refuse to believe racism is an obstacle, which might mean they won't recognize racist tactics when used against him.
Anyway, Joan downplays what I think is the most key factor in the poll because it's harder to fit into her bias. She treats it like an afterthought, when it's vital to the discussion. More importantly, she could include this factor and still provide analysis which supports Clinton. This is why these posts are so infuriating - one can be honest and supportive, instead of just the latter.
-
Now Hold on a Second
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If the system were truly fair, then it requres a revote in Michigan and Florida. The Obama camp was willing to compromise on revotes.
Florida rejected such an idea and the national party refused to force the issue. So what this author is arguing for is to replace one unfair system which all the candidates agreed upon with another idea which unfairly benefits one candidate.
It is very dishonets to claim Obama is disenfranchising when it was the Democratic National Committee who made the decision and demanded the candidates go along with it. More importantly the Michigan and Florida did this to themselve and in Florida it was a REPUBLICAN legislative ploy which violated the rules.
If Clinton were advocating an evenhanded fix, she'd be in the right - but she's not, she wants delegates which were not chosen fairly.
I'll agree the entire primary system is broken and absurd and Michigan and Florida should have been allowed to participate.
But to claim Clinton would be winning if this was a popular vote is pure speculation AND another barely concealed attack on Obama as if he was cheating by winning votes legally.