Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
This Poll is actually good for Clinton
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm going to repeat myself, because no-one seems to be addressing this point in all of the back and forth
Joan only mentions parenthetically a key factor of the poll 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 Americans are more ready for one or the other. IT 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.
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 this vital aspect like an afterthought, when it's vital to the discussion. More importantly, by taking this angle she could still be making points for Clinton without utterly insulting all the Obama supporters. I don't understand why she - and Salon - feels the need to keep using language which demonizes Obama, and people's feelings about race, in order to elevate her own candidate.
It's the same as her refusal to acknowledge her obvious bias, bing honest and supportive, is far less infuriating than supporting and weasely.
-
Joan, Your HTML is Broken
[Read the article: Thank you, Rush Limbaugh!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think the HTML on the post is broken. The actual quote from Limbaugh is missing - it's probably supposed to be a "blockquote" tag - plus everything else in the post, and the posts after it, is stuck in bold. This is probably because a bold close tag is missing.
I know it's a small thing, but since it this is a deliberately comment trolling post, it should at least contain the proper information.
-
Mark Penn - This Season's Dick Morris
[Read the article: Cashing in on the Clinton campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look, no one runs a campaign on their own - Clinton bears much of the blame for bringing in Mark Penn to begin with, but he is just one of many on her team clearly giving out terrible advice and resorting to fury and backlash tactics.
Going into this race, Clinton had the potential to run on a similar message of optimism, fair play, etc. etc. as Obama has. It's something she field tested early on when her victory was presumed a more sure thing and Obama was deemed making a first try.
When things got rough, I sincerely question if she by herself would have resorted to the scorhed earth methods and, worst of all, praising McCain in relation to Obama. These are things which typify many on her team, some of which go back to Bill Clinton and his embrace of Dick Morris. Everyone likes to pretend Morris was some mutant statter who answered to no one but the Clintons and was aligned only with them, but come on. He had been part of their campaigns off and on for years.
More importantly, if you examine the takedown of Howard Dean when he was an upstart candidate in the primaries, that did not occur spontaneously. Consultants and spin doctors helped it along and most of those weren't Republicans.
Now, I was reluctant to vote for Clinton because these people were involved in her campaign - and I don't want them in the white house. But I don't hate her, I don't think she's evil and I sure don't think all of her policies are bad. Ultimately I voted for Obama because the two seem very similar and he backed a good local candidate.
I think Clinton would be in a stronger position had she continued to go positive - possibly more positive than Obama, or at least emphasized her own good qualities more than going negative. More importantly, if she had to go negative, why not get aggressive on the Republicans and Bush and McCain? The American people want someone with a spine, they want someone who dares to point out the flaws of years of Republican majorities in Congress.
Or hey, how about vowing to not use signing statements to subvert the law anymore? Oops, only McCain has done that, and he kisses up to Bush in every other way.
Instead she's praised McCain, giving an already biased media an excuse to go even easier on the guy.
I don't have any fantasies about President Clinton bringing up John Yoo on war crimes charges, but had she given the impression she might at least make one speech condemning the endless malfeasance of the current administration, I think a lot of people might have said "I'd like some strength with my hope."
Instead were stuck with two candidates who come off as sending concilatory messages to Republicans when the GOP did no such thing to them and has exploited every bipartisan move to sabatoge efforts. Obama has had harsh words at times, Clinton occasionally, but both are coming off as ineffectual on this point. And that's because the consultants behind them are somewhat neutral schemers, always thinking about future connections and thus reluctant to piss off anyone they might need to suck up to.
Clinton definitely chose the worst of this consulting lot and for that she's either going to lose or limp into the White House when she could have lost or won with dignity.