Letters to the Editor
Timothy3
Published Letters: 107 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Superdelegates Surely Don't = Democracy
[Read the article: What will John Lewis do?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why are we even having this discussion? Superdelegates are the problem, not who they decide to vote for. Lewis says "he could 'never, ever do anything to reverse the action' of the voters of his district, who overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama." If so, why have superdelegates to begin with? That someone in the '80s had the elitist thought that superdelegates might be a good idea to moderate the so-very-threatening "liberal wing" of the party merely tells us the party bosses have a fundamental problem acknowledging that it is the voters who are supposed to decide.
-
Myopic Vision
[Read the article: A supersize controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's worth remembering that the party calls for "honest government" as part of its "The Democratic Vision." Superdelegates are hardly a step on the road to honest government. Indeed, it seems rather obvious that it's the party's way of gaming the system. Further, it's astonishingly patronizing when representatives such as Emanuel Cleaver say things like this: "It raises the age old political question. Are we elected to monitor where our constituents are ... or are we to use our best judgment to do what's in the best interests of our constituents?" How about neither. How about this: Cleaver votes once, I vote once and so does everyone else. That would be an honest process to produce an honest government while allowing constituents to determine "what's in the[ir] best interests.
-
This Thing of Ours
[Read the article: Clinton's "win-at-all-costs strategy"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We spend a lot of time here at Salon talking about democracy, the will of the people, the voice of the people, etc. Yet here we are, reading about a desperate attempt to grab the nomination at any cost. What, pray tell, are we doing? If there is, indeed, an effort underway to get the pledged delegates because party rules allow that, well, what a sorry expression of democracy we are. When the Politico reports that "pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years ...," we see what a destructive *game* this has become (or, always has been). And yet it's not a game, is it? Do the candidates believe what they say? The audacity of hope? The need (and ability) to change the system? The voters certainly seem to embrace it--in truth, thirst for it. I'm distressed, frankly, that so many people embrace one candidate or the other, cite their speeches and rhetorical efforts to demonstrate their ability to produce that longed-for change, yet quickly set that aside and endorse, essentially, a sad attempt to manipulate the rules to bring about a particular end. If bare knuckles are necessary to battle John MCCain, so be it; but can't this be done openly, on the basis of policy differences? It's no wonder so many walk away from this tattered process. (And I didn't even mention the un-democratic superdelegate nonsense.)
-
Here's an Advance Copy
[Read the article: The GOP attack plan for Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the general election the Republicans will merely use the same tactics employed by the Democratic half of our "elite" in the primaries. Senator Clinton's surrogates, whether her husband or Ferraro, slyly (or ham-fistedly, depending on your perspective) inserted race into the process, then--shockingly!--claimed, like the Friday night wrestler with befuddled visage, that they've committed no foul and that, indeed, it's the other guy who's injected reverse racism into the "debate", by God! Even here at Salon, we've had Joan Walsh ask if Obama's speech was enough. Well, it will never be enough. There's nothing the man can say that will assuage the fears trumped up by those media members who so desperately want to suckle at the breast of our elite and be accepted as members of that corrupt body. McCain, whose foreign policy credentials are as credible as bin-Laden's, will be pitched as an international guru while Obama will be positioned as a leftist, closet Communist with all sorts of hidden agendas which, once Time and the Washington Post get done with it, won't be hidden at all: a secret Muslim, a stealthy Islamic candidate who seeks to negotiate with the "enemy" solely to acommadate a secret Islamist agenda, etc. etc. The script has been written and all that's needed is for the performers to remember their lines. With cues from the usual media enablers, that won't be so hard.
-
No Oversight + No Laws = No Penalties
[Read the article: A Bear Stearns (im)morality tale]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The worst part of this (well, maybe not the worst but it's up there) is that, based upon what I've read, no laws have been broken. Thus, there is nothing to litigate regarding criminal misbehavior. These guys will walk with whatever remains ($12 million vs. $1 billion) and return to their golf or bridge games, only slightly worse for the wear. Yet the lack of oversight (a pro-market stance encouraged by Alan Greenspan, among others) which implies at some level the existence of actual law, if it continues, will only perpetuate this problem. Given that, Bear Sterns might be the first but it certainly won't be the last. Our elite, yes, they clearly deserve that title. Stalwart, ethical and moral, all.
-
Time to Tarnish that Shining Armor
[Read the article: The harmony between the Right and the media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Have to agree with Lynx. Obama, particularly (since Clinton has done a bang-up job contributing to this problem), simply needs to challenge these "moderators" by ridiculing/dismissing those questions that are issue-less. Yet, to enlarge the issue, Obama does himself no favors by repeatedly invoking McCain's knight-in-shining-armor reputation--that "he is a genuine hero," etc. So what? That's as irrelevant as most of the questions that comprise these debates. To that degree, Obama aggravates the problem. His job, in part, is to reveal McCain as yet another emperor-with-no-clothes-in-waiting. Glenn was correct in writing a few days ago (well, repeatedly) that the Right needs to be rhetorically slapped down when they work to divert attention from the problems that are of acute interest to voters. Not challenging debate questions that seek to misdirect attention simply perpetuates this problem.