Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 679 Editor's Choice: 9
-
The Math
[Read the article: Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign "scary"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Senator Barack Obama is going to win the party nomination and possibly the White House.
Interestingly, I have seen several people claim that the devotion of Obama supporters is off-putting, one even retracts support because of it.
The Obama campaign is not responsible for this video. The claim that Obama can be conflated with his fans is as specious as blaming Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton for the actions of their (annoying) supporters. It's a logical fallacy.
On the other hand, Obama would be foolish not to capitalize on the enthusiasm of his supporters.
A lot of HRC supporters express glee whenever the Obama campaign suffers a setback. It's called Schadenfreude. They bristle at the presumptive success of the Obama campaign. No one likes to back a loser, I know, I've voted for the Democratic candidate in the last 4 presidential elections, and besides re-relecting Hillary's husband in 1996, I haven't picked a winner in the lot of the bums.
But Clinton was the presumptive nominee before her candidacy was even officially announced, hand picked by some vague party kingmakers in a back-room deal replete with glad-handing, cigars being passed around, and self-congratulation. Of course, I can't know that this is true, but that's how it feels.
Then Senator Obama comes from out of nowhere and knocks the presumptive queen from her pedestal. I've seen this before, in 1992, when as a high school senior I canvassed neighborhoods in suburban Boston/Cambridge for then Arkansas Governor Clinton. I know the sound of a train coming. Does Hillary? I guess not. Being married to a winner doesn't make you one.
Everyone in the establishment would love to take Obama off the rails, it seems. Republicans know that the numbers for McCain get a lot better against Clinton.
-
@jjmmpmdawn
[Read the article: Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign "scary"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The contents of your comment are chock full of claims that Glenn Greenwald might refer to as being "entirely fact free."
-
Joe
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If this is the level of insight we are to expect from now until November, please do us all a favor and recuse yourself, or stop taking checks from the Clinton campaign.
-
@GG Re: Monsters and Obama
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm an Obama supporter, and I think the "monster" quote, and the campaign's rapid response to it can only help the Obama campaign.
First: it gives voice to what a lot of people suspect about Clinton: that she will do anything, regardless of whether it is good for the party or the country, to be elected. Also, the "psychological" damage is done and can't be taken back. Its like a color Stroop test -- the image is persistent, regardless of whether you want to consider it or not. Its like a ghost image that is flashed into the mind's eye by a flash of bright light, it is parsed. And Clinton supporters will parse it and have to ask themselves "why would someone, a woman, feel that way about my candidate." So, it forces Clinton supporters to re-rationalize their support. It won't work on the die-hards, but it might work on those on the fence -- and Obama himself didn't say it, and kept away from it, so he cannot be faulted for espousing the view that Clinton is "a monster."
Second: it puts into play the discussion on tactics -- Clinton's have been overwhelmingly negative, bordering on surreal ("I am ready, McCain is ready, Obama is not" -- an inferred endorsement of the Republican nominee!). Obama's campaign swiftly apologized, and the staffer resigned. No one has apologized for "Sudan-gate", "Hussein-gate", or "Ken Starr-gate". Certainly no one has been fired in the Clinton campaign. In fact, the only staff churn seems to be from advisors failing to deliver states. Clearly, the Obama campaign gains political capital from this gaffe: like the whisper campaigns against Obama ("he's a muslim, he's foreign, he's unpatriotic"), "monster-gate" paints Clinton in a bad light with a hard to wave-off negative image; unlike the smears against Obama, someone got fired/resigned, and an apology was made.
It's win-win for Obama.
-
Clearly..
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]..Tom Tomorrow hates Jews.
-
Wow
[Read the article: Hot off "The Wire"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Could Rawls have looked any more gay in that Statie uniform?
-
Thanks DCLaw1
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You beat me to the punch: I can pay someone to fuck me, video tape it, and it's legal, but if the camera is off, it's a crime.
Not to parrot HRH (who has a point), what is the difference between that and other victimless crimes, such as smoking a plant, or a plant extract, or shooting it up, or snorting it?
-
@jacksonian
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The victims of prostitution, like the victims of the drug war, largely have government to thank for their plight.
I do not know if you are simply a human rights or womens rights advocate, but either way, there is no right more fundamental for any human or woman than the right to trade services for cash.
What is the difference whether I make you a sandwich and get paid for my labor, tune your database and get paid for my labor, or suck your cock and get paid for my labor?
If prostitution were legal, then legal prostitutes would be afforded the same protections and privileges that their counterparts in other industries are afforded. That they lack those protections is where the problems begin.
So, are you just a stuck up prude, or do you really believe in human, women's, gay, transgender or bisexual's rights, and their rights to work safely, and be protected by the same protections other workers are granted?
-
@quiet type
[Read the article: Who cares if Eliot Spitzer hires prostitutes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't believe how stupid a question you pose.
Okay.. let's back up.. $1000/hr? I don't know what the market rate is, but, that's about the same as a neckless, dinner at The French Laundry and a couple of 8-balls.
..Either way, the expectation is sex in the end.
Why do you hate the free market? Are you underselling hookers? And if so, can I get your phone number?