Letters to the Editor
The Professor
Published Letters: 420 Editor's Choice: 26
-
To recap...
[Read the article: When life gives you an NYT investigation, make lemonade]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The NYT holds off on the McCain story as long as they can, at the request of McCain and his lawyers, and only run it to avoid being scooped by everyone else, and the story-line becomes "liberal NYT out to get McCain." Now they'll have to do a fawning follow-up to display 'balance.' Democrats have to get better at this game.
-
This is EXACTLY how republicans talk about democrats
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All the time. It's funny it stands out so much when a democrat does it. It's kinda rude, but that's how to win elections, and at least for one election season I'd like to see democrats turn the tables.
-
@ 1Voice
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Dean is saying "mean things" about McCain, which is by definition rude (according to Ms. Manners). I didn't say he wasn't telling the truth - the truth can be very rude ("been putting on a little weight lately?"). I like it - just pointing out that it's been unusual for democrats in recent history, so it stands out. For example, in the 90s republicans in congress repeatedly called Clinton a liar, but in the past few years if any democratic congressperson called Bush a liar, Reid himself would call for a censure vote.
-
Ms. Walsh
[Read the article: Obama's borrowed words]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks so much for taking a non-issue that was dead three days ago and trying to resurrect it for another news cycle to see if it will stick. All in the guise of an 'even-handed look at the issue.' Why don't we do a little even-handed re-examination of Whitewater, or travel-gate, or Hu, just to make sure nothing was missed last time? (by the way, I consider those non-issues too - just sayin').
-
@nancerich
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Work a little bit on your reading comprehension. There are remedial classes for that sort of thing in community colleges.
-
@Renegade Iconoclast
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've only jumped on the end to see what this longest-comment-thread-ever was all about. Thank you for summarizing - I have a sneaky feeling it's dead accurate.
-
@saintzack
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think that's it - sometime between the Texas debate and yesterday either she figured out or someone explained to her that her only way into the Whitehouse now is for Obama to be the nominee and lose to McCain. That "shame on you" business is shameful. His campaign has said nothing more negative about her healthcare plan than hers has said about his. His main critique, that simply requiring people to purchase health insurance BY LAW is not the nicest way to achieve universal health insurance, is a bald-faced truth. She's talking about him as if scolding a misbehaving little boy, and it is not appealing. She doesn't care anymore - she's not trying to appeal, just destroy.
-
The constitution?
[Read the article: A non-paranoid's guide to superdelegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](Disclaimer: I am a very strong Obama-supporter at this point)
I don't see what the constitution has to do with how a political party selects its nominee any more than how a company selects its CEO. Political parties are private entitities, and set their own rules for how a nominee is selected (who among you is in any way involved in who the Green Party will select as its nominee?). If you want your party to change how it works, you have to get involved in the sausage-making tedium of party activism. If, like 99% of people, you can't stomach such things, you turn over to both rights and responsibilities to others to make decisions about what they think is in the best interests of THE PARTY. I will eventually vote for whomever the party nominates. Other than wanting the party to select the person who has the best chance of winning in the fall, I don't care that much how they do it. If I did, it would be my responsibility to get more involved in party politics and make my opinion known. Luckily for those of you who do care, the party is constantly changing how the nominee-selection process works, and so if you get involved you have a good chance of affecting the process in the future. But it's sour grapes now to complain about a process that has been in place for decades only because it might be bad for your candidate (note to Clinton-supporters: this logic goes for MI and FL).
-
Two questions
[Read the article: Are you going to hell?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's the difference between "being religious" and just saying, "I like books; they give meaning to my life and sometimes help me make decisions"? I could be talking about Dickens, Morrison, Aesop, or a bible.
Secondly, what's hell got to do with it? The notion of an immortal soul comes later in Judaic thought (as someone said: Adam and Eve become MORTAL when they eat the apple, and will turn to dust). An 'afterlife' isn't mentioned in the first books of the OT. When it does eventually come in, there is no heaven/hell split, just the world of the dead. The heaven/hell split comes in later still. Isn't that just competitive evolution? First you say, "join my club, we have life after death!" Then, when that doesn't work, you bump it up to, "join my club, we offer a ticket to heaven!" Milton pushed this farther still, with the idea that particular clubs get you better seats in heaven.
-
Is Clinton now in the role of sparring partner...
[Read the article: Obama shows that dismissing slimy right-wing attacks is not difficult]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... training Obama how to handle negative attacks, or is she really trying to hobble him? I do think he is over-all stronger now having had to campaign against a very strong opponent for the nomination. But if a sparring partner hits too hard, or too low, you have wounds you have to carry with you to the main event. I don't think her campaign cares about that anymore.
-
You know the kid...
[Read the article: The Obama photo flap]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...the kid who pretends they're going to hit you, and you flinch, then they mock you for flinching? And then hit you anyway? That's Clinton's campaign. The kid on the playground that everybody hated.