Letters to the Editor
James65
Published Letters: 118 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Ummmm...
[Read the article: A Willie Horton ad for a new generation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Steve I enjoy your posts and you have done a great job and I hope you remain at the War Room helm, but to say you don't see how this add is that bad?
Go back and do a some research as to the ads that have made a significant impact in past elections and consider that these people are saying that since Obama won't execute (kill) gang members (i.e. young black men) how is he going to be tough enough to fight terrorism (i.e. kill and torture young muslims).
In America where the tipping point to decide an election is held among a relatively small portion of the electorate that except for the Clinton years went Republican since 1980 and consistently votes against its own interests in deference to campaigns of fear and bigotry, that ad and ones like it are going to resonate and resonate loudly with these people.
My question now and what I've been waiting to see: now that the right wing has made a hard jab at Obama, how will he respond? Or will he even respond?
Remember four years ago; if I had seen an ad attacking Kerry for his Vietnam service as opposed to his anti war stance after serving in Vietnam I wouldn't have believed it would have had any effect for two reasons. The first is because I would have assumed Kerry would swat it down like a fly and use it to pummel Bush. The second is because I would have expected the media to discredit the dishonesty of the ad.
Guess what? Neither happened.
-
Sighhhhhh...
[Read the article: McCain: "Clear who Hamas wants to be the next president"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What this shows is the sad lack of a quality education within the United States. This line of thinking is so simple--Hamas says something positive about Obama, I don't like Hamas, so I don't like Obama.
However, an educated and critically thinking person will understand that the Palestinians have real issues that need to be addressed and adressed fairly so Hamas as well as Fatah would see McCain as a threat to finding a solution to their problems with Israel as they perceive them while Obama is someone who would represent a fresh opportunity to initiated change that could lead to some form of accord. The same could be said of Clinton by the way. Either candidate would seek to establish settling the Israeili/Palestinian issue in an intelligent manner as a priority.
Meanwhile, McCain and the right see it and will sell it as nothing but enemies and friends. And many in the electorate without the educational background to understand the issue and why it is vitality important to America's interest will acquiesce and agree that a vote for Obama/Clinton is a vote for terrorists.
This is why Democrats need to understand the electorate and the dynamics of the American polity and adjust the rhetoric accordingly.
-
Krugman is usually...
[Read the article: Krugman asks "what's gone wrong" with Obama campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Spot on in his analysis of policy issues and economics. Many of the angry posters here who seem to simply attack anyone who offers a counter point to Obama should remember that.
Krugman also raises the very interesting point that what Obama is asking Democrats to do in his uni-message is to accept that the partisanship and nasty attacks of the 1990s and the 2000s are equally as much the fault of Democrats as they are Republicans. Obama is setting himself up as the "uniter" who has risen above the respective parties and as such has the credibility to declare who is at fault (both parties) and that only he can unite the partisans to get things done and revolutionize American politics.
Well, you know what. I like Obama, but I don't agree with his rhetoric. As a Democrat I am willing to point to where we can be faulted -- we did not stand up for universal and portable health coverage when we had the chance in the 1990s and we did not stand up againts the Iraq invasion, for example -- but I am completely unwilling to accept that Democrats are as equally responsible for Karl Rove, Ken Star, et al as well as the tactics they have employed.
-
Clinton lost congress?
[Read the article: Krugman asks "what's gone wrong" with Obama campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have seen this claim a few times that Bill Clinton lost congress for the Dems as yet another way for Obama supporters to discredit the last Democratic president.
To lay that at his feet ignores the campaigns run by senators and house members and the complete lack of any coherent rebutal by the senate and house campaign committees. Further, it was Clinton's "liberal agenda" that was used by Gingrich et al to castigate Democrats.
It wasn't Clinton traingulating against his own party. That is absurd.
The history is quite clear on Bill Clinton's presidency -- it was one of the most successful tenures as messured by the prosperity and peace of the country BUT ALSO in his ability to move on very large and significant domestic agendas. The crime bill (which worked), the financial package (which worked) and welfare reform (which worked) are just a few examples.
And speaking of triangulating against the party -- what are you all doing by continually trying to deminish the Clinton administration for the sole benefit of Obama? And what is Obama doing by asking Democrats to assume equal blame for all that Republicans have done over the past twenty years? We are not all equally responsible for the level of partisanship in government.