Letters to the Editor
heyjude
Published Letters: 410 Editor's Choice: 42
-
Low opinion
[Read the article: How will the spin from Tuesday's votes shake out?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It seems to me that a lot of people who write Salon posts are giving the "media" (whatever that is) a lot more power than it has. I don't think most people are all that impressed by or obsessed with what talking heads have to say and what the media is doing or not doing. Honestly, when you actually have the opportunity to hear actual interviews with actual people (which sometimes are run in/on the "media"), I am always impressed by their independence from media or other influence and the way they talk about what's on their mind, and the basis of their decisions.
We are a lot smarter, out there, and a lot more able to make our own judgments, than we're given credit for by all these people posting about all the terrible things "the media" are doing to us.
As a voter, I for one -- and many, many of my friends and colleagues for more -- rely on learning about the issues through actual research of the candidates' own words and deeds, not the filtered version provided by the media. I don't care about polls and no poll would ever move me in one direction or another. I don't like political ads and I usually find a reason to leave the room or use the mute button when they come on -- I don't expect political ads to be truthful or useful. They are a form of propaganda. We all know that.
So, for heaven's sake, give Democracy some credit here. The voters are not pawns of the media, or sheep bleating after the polls. They're ordinary citizens too busy with their own lives to care too much about what all the self-absorbed pretty talking heads are talking about.
-
better
[Read the article: "Yes, she will"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary's speech was better than her previous post-results appearances, but, of course, it would be because she had something to celebrate, and was not in the uncomfortable position of pretending to win when she had actually lost. I am not a Hillary supporter, but I thought she did a great job tonight and made the most of what she had.
On the other hand, it's hard for me to see this as a humiliating defeat for Barack Obama, since he retains his delegate lead; he won Vermont; Texas, no matter who "wins" is a virtual dead heat. So he's as much in the race as ever, and he is the one who overcame a HUGE deficit in both those states as of a few weeks ago to get as close as he did. She had a 20-point lead before he started campaigning, so he has proven he can pull voters.
My hope is, as the campaign goes forward, they will NOT keep going negative. John McCain and Mike Huckabee made a big deal tonight out of the fact that their race stayed positive and respectful, and McCain got a few digs in about maintaining a positive tone. He is looking more and more like the "adult" in the race, not the old guy.
It is incumbent on Hillary and Barack to find some way to carry this campaign forward without shredding each other to bits or developing so much negativity about each other that McCain hardly needs to say anything about either of them. He can just stand by and shake his head sadly at the antics of the Democrats and stay positive. This is a real danger for Democrats; he is NOT a Republican that no moderate Democrat would consider voting for. He could play on the disgruntlement of Democrats who get primary-weary and sick of negativity.
We have to have a strategy that thinks beyond the primaries and defines the Democratic candidates on Democratic terms in a positive way -- a winning general election strategy.
-
McCain's biggest talking point
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary Clinton gave John McCain his biggest talking point -- I can see the endless ads he'll run replaying it -- when she was interviewed this morning and said, "John McCain has the experience to be president; I have the experience to be president; Barack Obama has built his whole campaign on one speech he made."
I know that's her way of pushing the Superdelegates, but, once more, the Democrats are on their way to shooting themselves in the foot.
To the extent we destroy each other, we're doing the Republicans' work for them, and they can just stand by and smirk.
-
Party leadership?
[Read the article: Should Florida and Michigan vote again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is a big Democratic party problem. It's amazing to me that no one saw this coming ... FL and MI knew, ahead of time, that their votes wouldn't count. No one fought this ridiculous situation ahead of the vote.
To whom would they give the delegates from the Michigan voters who voted for no one over Hillary? How would the party explain to Obama supporters in FL that they were entirely disenfranchised?
This is a huge social justice issue for the party, not for the Candidates. Hillary gamed the system to some extent, but she knew the rules, too.
In my family, if you agree to a set of rules before a game, you don't change them during or after the game. If you don't think the rules are fair, you argue it ahead of time, until you get it resolved.
If these votes count, it would be a slap in the face to the whole notion that agreements matter at all to Democrats. On the other hand, I don't like seeing voters disenfranchised. I agree that the PARTY should come up with the cash and hold either primaries or caucuses in both states, and seat the delegates accordingly.