Letters to the Editor
Jerm
Published Letters: 100 Editor's Choice: 3
-
@Rufus - Please Help
[Read the article: McCain campaign baits Obama on Clinton slurs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]OK - I feel stupid. What so you mean by "e primus unum"?
I searched for the phrase, and the all-seeing google only found the phrase referenced in letters penned in one of your names. So, I admit, I'm confused. Are you making a mistake (primus = pluribus)? Or is this some really cool Latin construct that neatly sums up the true American spirit? Please explain.
-
@rufus
[Read the article: McCain campaign baits Obama on Clinton slurs]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nope, giving you the benefit of the doubt. You've repeated it several times, so I didn't think it was a typo. I was just curious what you meant. Sorry if I came off a little snarky.
-
Joan, you frustrate me
[Read the article: How much can John Edwards help Barack Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]People are attacking one another because they are angry. It makes people mad to be called racists, just as others are angered by accusations of sexism. It makes people mad that a group of soar losers justify their own anger with accusations against "soar winners". Clinton supporters dismiss young, Internet-generation voters while simultaneously warning (sometimes threatening) that the proverbial blue collar vote is being lost. It's futile to suggest either camp has more valid concerns, because we're all post-rational at this point.
You have the bullhorn, and you use it to consistently emphasize your own biases. That is your right and honor as the editor, but you know well that you stir up the hornets when you poke at their nest.
I wonder if we'd all be happier if The Sopranos and The Wire hadn't recently ended forever, soon to be followed by Battlestar. What else can we do, but worry and argue?
-
@Liberty isn't free
[Read the article: A great debate about Obama and Appalachia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Libertyaintfree said, "we are a capitolist [sic] democracy," and, "the market will dictate if we can drive SUV's [sic] or what we set out [sic] thermostats at." If by capitalist democracy you mean hyper-commercialized consumer culture, then I agree with you.
It's interesting how frequently people conflate market dynamics with democratic will, but the frequency and amplitude of the argument does not make it universal or true. I realize I'm being all elitist, but our republic is a nation of laws; not markets. Adam Smith's invisible hand is an economic fiction, and nevertheless also has nothing to do with democracy.
I'm not sure who's trying to force you to change, and I'm sorry you feel oppressed. Maybe you could cite one single statement that Obama himself (or his "cronies") has made that leads you to believe him an oppressor. I'll go ahead and preemptively reject the "bitter" remark, since it had no force of law or proposal of policy behind it...and also since it is so frequently quoted out of context.
-
@memory foam
[Read the article: A great debate about Obama and Appalachia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find myself asking the same question. Maybe I'm in denial, but I simply don't buy it. It may have more to do with dislike for Obama than support for Clinton. It is troubling if it is dislike though, since I'm not sure what Obama did to earn their scorn. If it is a result of some of his supporters' zeal, then I think two things: 1) that's incredibly stupid. And 2) it could really be a problem in November.
-
@AKA Smith
[Read the article: A great debate about Obama and Appalachia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, my tongue was a bit in my cheek. You know how us elitists are. I agree with your implication...I am a bad fish too.
-
@Phylmom
[Read the article: A great debate about Obama and Appalachia]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really appreciate your comments, and I'm sure a lot of people here do as well. Don't let 'em get to you. It was especially nice to see your response on poverty. I was tempted to write a similar post, but you said it very well. Hopefully we can make Obama an Appalachian homeboy like you said of Clinton and Jackson. Either way, you're cool.
-
I think Hillary should concede
[Read the article: A split Democratic decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's just my opinion. It may not be popular with some people or our esteemed editor, but we could use the time to heal these rifts between the two camps. We could use the time to drum up some of the recognition Obama will need among those Appalachian voters (among others). We could use the time to raise money for one candidate instead of two. We could use the time to initiate debates with McCain and the right. I guess I think the time is valuable.
When McCain was declared the nominee for the GOP I heard some really awful things being said about him from his own party. But they ripped the sticky stuff off quickly, and they're closing ranks pretty effectively. Dems should be able to do the same.
All that said, I still admire Hillary, and if she wants to keep going until June or on to the convention, that is her right. I just don't think it's useful for our party, particularly if she took it all the way to the convention. But I guess a couple more weeks won't kill me or our party.
-
@jpincus
[Read the article: A split Democratic decision]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good. He's a naif, but at least he's not scum. Perhaps he would have been better in your view if he'd hired saints like Rove or Penn to advise his campaign.
-
Hillary in Florida
[Read the article: Obama only about 70 delegates away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm watching Hillary in Florida right now. She is taking her "argument" directly to the people, and is circumventing the rules and the party leadership in the process. She is talking about disenfranchisement, and laying blame at the feet of the party. This spectacle seems irrational and irresponsible...like a child throwing a tantrum.
She did agree to the same rules as everyone else, and ever since she's fallen behind her tune has changed. She publicly stated that those votes wouldn't be counted. As for disenfranchisement, what about those votes that weren't cast by people who understood the situation? How can you argue that the electorate was informed when there was no campaigning in either state and only one name on the ballot in Michigan?
I agree with her that this is a problem, but I think her actions are making it worse. She's trying to ensure that any solution other than that most beneficial for her campaign will be viewed as a sham.
How do voters in Florida and Michigan feel? Do you agree with her that those elections were fair, and that the votes should count?