Letters to the Editor
had_enough
Published Letters: 846 Editor's Choice: 50
-
what's the problem? It's just marketing...
[Read the article: Dear Readers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Realname...you have a point. For reasons that are obscure, but not invisible, Democrats have a harder time hitting the GOP where it lives. I've never been sure why. It's not because Dems, as a group, are more civilized. It may have more to do with Dems' image of themselves as people who don't *do* that kind of thing.
Whereas, we expect extremist, stupid, dirty pool from the GOP at this point, and so they are forgiven for it.
what perplexes me though, is why everyone was so up-in-arms over the original article. I suspect Obama is engaging in some extremely wise marketing. Seems to me there are a couple of things going on here: first, he has to defuse the problem of being the "dangerous black man." There is a very large segment of the voting public, mostly over 30, that will find Obama extremely threatening. His softer approach is his way of solving that problem, and it's a damned clever idea.
It's very likely that accusations from the GOP that Obama is a wimp will not stick, and will just sound stupid, even to the broad middle, because Obama is, after all, an attractive, masculine black man. His "blackness" will both modulate his softer image, and make nonsense out of the usual GOP efforts to wussify the candidate.
The other thing Obama is doing, and it's equally clever, is he's working to play on people's emotional perceptions, rather than their intellectual perceptions. This is what Bush did, and Reagan did, to devastating effect. If Obama can pull this off, he could win it all. I'd say the jury is still out on whether this aspect of his marketing will be successful. But it's a very interesting approach.
Giuliani can't do it...he's too crude. Mitt Romney is too fake, and I doubt Thompson has enough of the common-touch to pull it off. McCain can play this game, if he's disciplined enough, but his temperamental tough-guy pose might disrupt his appeal to softer emotional perceptions.
And this is where Hillary is a gonner. She appears to have no emotions, other than a kind of crankiness.
I thought Scherer's original article was very interesting, and much food for thought, which is why we come here, right?
-
@nc steve..I feel your pain..but..
[Read the article: Dear Readers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]nc steve wrote, in part:
To instead have Salon publish this silly, shallow RNC talking point of a story out as if it was an original idea just kind of makes some of us feel like Glenn and Bob et. al. have labored in vain. That leads to despair over the ultimate fate of the Republic which, in turn, leads to ugly letters.
One final note. So help me God, if Joan Walsh or any oneelse writes a comment claiming that the publication of this vacuous story is validated by the torrent of negative comments, or that it was good because it was “provocative” and “touched a nerve,” my head will explode! That rationale would justify publishing Klan propaganda on page 1.
*********
Leave us all not forget something crucial here: Scherer is *reporting* on interesting facts. Yes, his interpretation of the facts, but still facts.
It's a fact that Obama is cultivating a deliberately softer image than he might otherwise, as part of a total campaign to market himself to primary voters and beat Hillary...and then beat the GOP candidate.
It's a fact that Hillary appears to be cultivating a very muscular, aggressive image as part of *her* marketing.
These are facts, folks. You can gripe about them all you want, but that doesn't somehow negate them. You have a beef about this stuff, take it up with the candidates. Don't shoot the messenger.
And note well that if Scherer came up with this, the GOP will too. Scherer hasn't handed the GOP anything. They're probably way ahead of him. And us. Also note well that Scherer began with conversations he had with actual primary voters..people going to the speeches, following the campaigns. This is how people are experiencing the candidates. Whether we like it, or not.
You want real journalism, or do you just want robotic recitation of a set of talking points? I'll take journalism, the good, the bad, the ugly, and make up my own mind.
-
There's a surprise.
[Read the article: Tucker Carlson, stalwart defender of sexual privacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tucker Carlson is a hypocrite. I'm shocked, SHOCKED to find that Tucker Carlson, of all people, is a hypocrite. I am equally shocked to realize that he apparently has absolutely no awareness of the fact that he is a hypocrite.
A wino on a Gallo-bender is more sensible than Tucker Carlson, now, then, always. I've never understood why *anyone* took the guy seriously.