Letters to the Editor
PaulBC
Published Letters: 207 Editor's Choice: 24
-
this is probably pointless to analyze but...
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here is Obama's remark (as I found it online) "She's talking like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter!"
I thought it was pretty funny--I admit I thought it was in poor taste, just because the Annie Oakley caricature is at least somewhat sexist, and Clinton could not have responded with an analogous historical African American without looking very bad.
But never in my wildest dreams did I think you could mangle this sequence of intentionally silly, disconnected images into an argument about what kind of weapon you'd use to shoot ducks. As far as I know, Walsh is the first to try. Me, I'd have gone for the sexist angle. And by the way, I do respect Walsh's good-natured reporting of Obama's rebuttal last week, but it looks like we're back to this sort of thing.
Oakley, as you may know (or looked up as I did) was not a duck hunter but a sharpshooter who traveled with Buffalo Bill. "Whether it be a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, the legendary markswoman Annie Oakley was masterful with them all." or so says my search result, so we're partially covered here already.
Obama suggested (comically) that (a) Clinton thinks she's Annie Oakley (b) She wants us to think she is a devoted duck hunter and (c) she's "packing heat" (not necessarily on the duck blind but maybe the campaign trail) or wants us to think so. The six shooter calls to mind the Old West, rather than ducks, but that makes it funnier than a reference to whatever the 21st century duck hunter prefers.
I mean, I don't even think comments like this help Obama, because it's just too over the top. The seeming spontaneity was probably the biggest selling point. If he had focus-grouped the thing with hunters, who knows what sort of unfunny pseudo-joke we'd be hearing.
In short, I have no axe to grind with Walsh, and I respect that she likes Hillary, but man, stop grasping at straws.
-
AKA Smith: Obama never said that
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Again, the quote: "She's talking like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter!"
Three distinct (and silly) images with no implication that she would use a six shooter to hunt ducks. Unless you think Obama was also erroneously claiming that Annie Oakley was a duck hunter, then there is no reason to connect the six shooter with duck hunting either.
-
no, it's not contradictory; it's the only effective way to even the field
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]One game theory result that has made its way into pop culture is "tit for tat" as applied to Prisoner's Dilemma. Without going into details, there is a nice way to play that is better overall, but if your opponent plays mean, you play mean back. That is the most effective strategy.
It would be nice if we all took a polite interest in the "issues" and eschewed personal attacks. But that only works if both sides play nice. A first step in the reversal of dirty tactics is to neutralize them, and the only way to neutralize them is to attack in kind.
So, no, it's not contradictory to play mean and say "I'll stop playing mean if you will." It's an essential negotiating tactic. It's also preferable to saying "I always lose, but I'm still a better person because I always play nice." That is a cop-out and a dereliction of duty to your constituents. If you're not in it to win, then you're not doing anyone any good.
-
one other thing, democrats are already contradictory
[Read the article: Is it "contradictory" to decry the right's tactics while insisting on their equal application?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Every Democratic campaign I can think of involves a few ineffectual negative tactics that tend to backfire and embarrass everyone involved. As I already wrote, it's a cop-out to say "It's OK that we always lose because we're still better than you." when it's a waste of time unless you're playing to win. But by the end of one of these ugly campaigns, nobody is ever left looking very good.
So if we are going to use negative tactics, which is absolutely necessary anyway, let's put the effort into making them stick. There is nothing contradictory in saying that we understand the current political environment--though we'd prefer it otherwise--and are willing to put in the hard work needed to win. Generally, the fallback that we're "above dirty politics" is just a way of masking laziness and lack of discipline.
-
Bumper sticker: Jesus, a good guy, but unacceptable on television.
[Read the article: Media hypocrites love personality politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Though I'm not sure Matthews intended it that way.
-
Whoa... cool that man-lust, Chris
[Read the article: Media hypocrites love personality politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I don't see a big, beefy alternative to Hillary Clinton -- a big guy. You know what I mean? An ... everyday big guy. I don't see one out there. I see a lot of slight, skinny, second- and third-rate candidates."
Chris Matthews gets paid for this? This sounds like that skit they used to have on "In Living Color." Why don't they just call the show "Men on Politics"?