Letters to the Editor
ljwalker53
Published Letters: 559 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ bernbart
[Read the article: Obama response to Clinton debate ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obama's supporters don't do him much credit when they can't spell or use correct grammar: "loose"? "poltical"? "catchup"?
A perfect example: On Saturday at my caucus one guy showed up who had no idea what to do; I told him that he had to sign in and fill out all the information on the sheet. When it came time for him to put down his "First Choice" candidate, he looked at me and asked, "How do you spell Obama?" WOW! If this is an indication of how "educated" Obama's supporters are, we're in BIG trouble...
The "new" generation!
-
Obama's 'Non'-PAC Money...
[Read the article: Obama's surge extends down the Potomac]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Money contributed to Barack Obama's campaign by the likes of CitiCorp, CreditSuisse, Goldman Sachs and others is PAC money. Does it matter if that money is given through "employee organizations", or through "individual employees" -- like family members -- through the company's contribution mechanism? NO!
PAC money by any other name is still PAC money. You can provide rationalizations and justifications for it until you are blue in the face. These companies have "lobbyists" in Washington, D.C. to work on their behalf. If you think not, you need to spend some time in D.C.
And while we're on it: What exactly do you think unions are? I happen to be a strong union supporter, former union organizer and longtime union member. But unions have PACs and lobbyists. Last time I checked, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had major union support. Now, tell me that Barack Obama doesn't take PAC money. That is just absurd.
Barack Obama's supporters and followers need to stop thinking he is some savior sent to rescue U.S. politics, get real, and look farther than the slogans, because he is a "politician" just like Hillary Clinton is a politician.
There is no "good guy"; there is no "bad guy". And you're headed for extreme disappointment once you find out that Barack Obama can't deliver on his promises...
-
@ J.Angel: Distorting Clinton's Senate Record, Again...
[Read the article: Obama's surge extends down the Potomac]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Republicans oughta love you! That's a play straight from their gameplan: Pull out all the 'lightweight' resolutions that HRC supported...but LEAVE OUT the substantive measures. That isn't even spin; it's complete distortion and half-truths.
It is just pathetic that Obama's campaign has to stoop to this level to get support. Of course, I guess that's what I'd expect from a bunch of folks who haven't a clue about the legislative process, and who believe absolutely anything Obama says. It's not a real testament to democracy or Obama's campaign to have ignorant voters making uninformed "choices". But the rest of us, unfortunately, end up living with the fallout.
-
KcM: Education...
[Read the article: Obama response to Clinton debate ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But it does mean you're on a slippery slope when you start deriding Obama supporters as morons, even notwithstanding how insulting and rude such an argument is in the first place.
I'm a journalist and an English professor. You might think this is "insulting" and "rude", but I don't. I see the end results in my classes and it is not "nuthin." When people can't spell, can't construct a sentence, and have no idea about correct usage, that extends to the types of arguments they construct, to the use/no of critical thinking and analysis, and doesn't speak well for what lies ahead. Oh, sure, as long as lots of well-educated folks are "leading" the discussions and the parade, we don't have to really worry about those who can't spell, use proper grammar, think critically, and construct sentences or ideas.
And, by the way, I didn't deride these folks as "morons". But what I am asking should be a given in a free and supposedly "educated" society, the same as excellent math and science skills should be a given!
-
@ Xrandadu Hutman
[Read the article: Obama response to Clinton debate ad]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Finally, to ljwalker, I want to ask you, if you really are an English professor (you have an advanced degree? really?) then I imagine you've spent some time reading the books of John Steinbeck, Gabriel Garcia Marquez and other authors who are compassionate toward the undereducated class of society. I would think you could do better than to unabashedly mock such people and turn them into negative examples just to suit your political agenda.
I happen to believe in "compassion" but even compassion has its stress points, especially when I am asked to believe that this candidate -- Barack Obama -- represents the future of America.
So, criticize me if you will. The relationship between civil discourse and persuasion is hinged to an understanding and proper use of the English language (in the U.S.). In the case of the "poster" to whom I directed my comment: spelling and usage were egregious. That doesn't make me feel very "hopeful" about the future.
Is this true among Clinton supporters? Sure! And I have ALSO commented on Salon and elsewhere about this very thing.
One more thing: This is not a "political agenda". It is about the use of our language -- something that is (or should be) fundamental in our society -- to argue persuasively, to put into action the types of change we want to see, and to be the best of our society. I offer as examples the numerous posts I have seen here and elsewhere re: our current president and his "use" of the English language ('nuculur', 'amuricun', 'eye-rak', 'eye'ran', etc.).