Letters to the Editor
Akron Mike
Published Letters: 116 Editor's Choice: 3
-
Winners/'Losers
[Read the article: Democrats strike up the show]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]of the big three, hilary did best. she was solid, prepared and exhibited more decisiveness than either obama or edwards. the former seemed off his game; a lukewarm performance at best. edwards seemed like ... well, edwards. impressive on the homefront, a rookie on foreign policy. and sorry, hard for me to watch him and not remember how cheney handed him his lunch in the '04 veep debate.
of the second tier, i thought biden came off best. in fact, i'd argue he may have even won the debate. his answers were always concise, and he came off as more authoritative than anyone. dodd was pretty solid too. the big loser? richardson: he was horrible. always running over, ineffectual answers, slipping his campaign themes/credientials at every opportunity. all in all, a stinko, desperate performance.
and for those letter writers that loved gravel and kucinich ... that's all well and good, folks, but just remember you're playing right into the hands of republicans.
-
It all goes back to Israel
[Read the article: Joe Lieberman, from his indie perch]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Putting aside Holy Joe's oily sanctimoniousness, not to his mention his general weasel-ness, the problem with his position on Iraq and Iran is its blind allegiance to Israel. Politicans like Lieberman can easily toss around loaded words like "terrorists" or "Islamic Extermists" to justify their hard-line positions. The problem is it's a half-truth. None of us want another WTC, but until we temper our country's Pro-Israel stance, even moderate factions of the Muslim/Islamic community will not trust as equitable power brokers. Thus, the Islamic extremists, though capable of horrendous acts, become rhetorical bogey men for policy makers like Lieberman. And until our leaders re-calibrate their positions in regard the Jewish state, we will never fully affect peace in the Middle East.
-
more blinders, more jingoism
[Read the article: You must remember this]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]i agree with "freeproton"'s thesis and a few others. this is strictly a view of WWII through american eyes. such a focus isn't horrible (though i suspect it will lead to the usual "greatest generation" cheese by the film's end); in fact, strip away the sappy cemetary scenes and speilberg largely made it work in "private ryan". but such limited focus for a sizeable documentary concering a semi-global conflict seems a tad ridiculous, if not myopic. burns is an effective filmmaker. his "civil war" opus, and to a lesser extent, "baseball" worked wonderfully. but those stories were uniquely american even in their broadest concept. WWII is not. But somehow proposes to be. (I suspect he deleted the word "world" from the title to his hedge his bets.) So we know where were going with this, right? Shed a tear for the ruskies, and the brits (the battle of britian was given a minute of airtime the first night) and of course the jews, but damnit, let's go to the tavern and hoist one to the boys! such shortsighted nationalism is not extremely dangerous in something as monolothic and distant as america's "heroism" in WWII, but you can also see how such a limited vision of global understanding can lead to a thing we now call iraq.
-
let the fury fly ...
[Read the article: The nag, the witch and the media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]interesting posts from the female electorate. i wonder what the breakdown of hillary support is among professional women vs. housewives. could be revealing. ms. walsh makes a good point about the "dynasty" issue, or as one female blogger claimed, that hillary "married into it". a bit of silly charge when you consider she married a fellow yale law student who came from much humbler origins than herself. now hey, if you want to claim laura bush "married into it", you'd have a point.
personally, i'm no huge fan of hillary either (though i am one of her husband). but she has run a solid campaign and i would defend her against these "republican in dem's clothing" charges. remember, team clinton is the only successful dem prez candidacy in the last thirty years and they know how to run toward the center, even if their centrism might prove as misleading as dubya's "compassionate conservatism".
my preference is biden -- i think he's the smartest, straightest shooter of the bunch -- but can't see him getting it, and for those who claim they'll stay home if hillary is nominated, it comes off as more pouty than principled (a reacton more in line with senior prom envy). i'm no huge fan of edwards or o'bama either (both strike me as lightweights), but i'll gladly punch their ticket come nov. of '08 if it means staving off the fascists. same with hillary.
-
re: "Who will Vote for Clinton"
[Read the article: The nag, the witch and the media]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Doubtful if you're still reading this thread but I did want to get back to you in regard to your wonderful post. Your toughness and pragmatic outlook, given your personal situation, is both admirable and refreshing. And if you meant to bring me up short for my bemused detatchment, you scored your point. i shouldn't have mentioned the professional women vs. housewife thing. such comparisons are outdated, overly simplistic and stink of chauvinism. Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts and story. Your reply was not taken lightly.
-
the wrong rationale
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]i suspect cubs nation wouldn't have been up in arms as much if sweet lou had kept his yap shut about the three day rest/game 4 biz, and had merely said, "hey look, marmol's been virtually unhittable all year and we often run him out there in the seventh. it just didn't work tonight."
and thanks, kris, for clearing up MJAD's question. i wondered about that play as well.