Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 406 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Folks keep writing that the cover overwhelms conversation about the article
[Read the article: Lizza defends New Yorker cover]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But there's really nothing new in the article that we would now be discusing on "Hardball", "Fresh Air" or Salon.com for that matter; Obama is a politician just like every other politician.
I knew what the article was about before reading just from the certain posters and Koppleman saying that the article was "interesting"
And for that matter, what does the cover have to do with the article?
-
A satiric cover that portrays something SO over the top, we'd know it's satire....
[Read the article: Lizza defends New Yorker cover]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And of course, something like that has no limit or line of good taste to cross.
So, I'm guessing had Hillary won the nomination the New Yorker would be printing a cover depicting Hillary Clinton killing Vince Foster? Everyone knows that's just a Republican smear they'd use against her. And it's so over-the-top, you just know that it is satire.
Who cares if images are the primary medium for "low-information-voters", if they're too stupid to get it then to hell with them.
-
@ Aemaeth
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, satire is intended to make people angry?
Which people? It should be telling that in most cases the group being satirized would be the ones who get angry.
In other words, in this case, the folks who spread internet email that characterizes the Obamas as they are potrayed here should be angry. I realize that the purpose of satire is not necessarily to be funny, but as an attack using wit as a weapon.
So here, the satire misses the mark entirely. How do I know? Because the target of the cover, those who trade in these rumors, have sent me a copy of this cover with an "I told you so" story in the body.
And who is angry with the cover? The supposed victims of the right wing smears.
So as satire, it fails completely.
-
@ velomonkey
[Read the article: Rush Limbaugh was right]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Satire isn't always meant to be funny, though sometimes it is. Good, biting satire certainly isn't funny to its inteded target.
In the examples you cited in your post, Bill and Hillary, Gore and Bush, were the targets of the satire.
Can anyone tell me how this cover strikes out at the New Yorkers stated intended target, the right-wingers who spread these lies?
If they wanted to target Obama on his support for FISA or his move to the center, or some of his supporters who view him as a messiah, I could see and appreciate that.
But again, here they say they are holding up to ridicule those who trade in false smears. Yet the target of their ire is completely absent from the piece.
It's not that we lack a sense of humor or that we don't get it. It's just crap as satire but because this is the "new Yorker" we're supposed to think it's wit is above our heads.
-
My feelings before this trip even began
[Read the article: A tale of two campaigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]was that Obama may slip a bit in the polls.
Right now, foreign policy is not the main concern of voters; particularly here in the middle of America.
So while Obama is overseas, McCain is concentrating on economic issues.
Even though I thought Obama might lose some points in the process of honing his foreign policy chops, and neglecting domestic issues for a week, it was necessary for the long run to November.
He will be able to close some of the gap with McCain on foreign affairs, and once he's home and concentrating again on domestic issues the over-all gap between he and McCain will widen even more.
-
@ antineocon
[Read the article: A tale of two campaigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think you have the one of the reasons polls are so close.
Also, Obama is very unknown and in the middle of America, voters are more prone to distrust outsiders. It's why St. Louis and Chicago are still so incredibly segregated.
Here in St. Louis metro area, regionalism is rampant. It's a local joke that the first thing someone asks a person they've just met is where did they go to high school, as if that tells them everything they need to know about that person.
We only vote for people that we've known for our (or their) entire life. Not just that, we knew their parents, grandparents etc.
On average I'd say folks in middle America have an aversion to change.
So in reality, its a testament to middle America's newly found hatred of Republicans trumping its inate aversion of change that Barack Obama is holding his own in places like MO, IN, IA, and WI.
-
A couple anecdotes of why I think these long range polls mean nothing
[Read the article: A tale of two campaigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I just went to my nephews wedding down in Cape Girardeau, MO, boyhood home of Rush Limbaugh!
I nearly dropped when I saw the occasional Obama sign. This is a solidly Republican district. Democrats have almost no chance of electoral success there, yet here were signs of change.
One of the biggest shockers were the pickup trucks with gun racks sporting Obama bumper stickers. I told my wife that we must have somehow crossed into "Bizzaro Cape Girardeau"
The other big shock was when my evangelical sister-in-law and her minister said they were voting for Obama. To my knowledge, neither have ever even considered voting Democratic.
I asked them if they knew that he was pro-choice? Both knew, but said that after years of voting Republican, very little has changed with abortion. But in the meantime, ever other part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount has been ignored by Republicans. That as good Christians, they can no longer ignore Republican disregard for the poor, the weak, the elderly, and the stewardship of the Earth.
I left thinking hell must have frozen over.
Change is coming, it just takes longer here.
-
@ chicago_college_kid
[Read the article: A tale of two campaigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Actually since after NH primary most major pollsters have been quietly factoring the "bradley effect" into their polls.
It's why the later primary polls (excepting IN and NC because they over-estimated its effect) were so close.
-
Another thing about these polls
[Read the article: A tale of two campaigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While independent voters are choosing sides, one aspect of the race would seem to provide the Obama campaign an opportunity.
Many more Obama voters are solidly planning to vote for him, McCain's support is far weaker; many more of his supporters say that they could be swayed to vote for Obama.