Letters to the Editor
little lord baltimore
Published Letters: 189 Editor's Choice: 9
-
Thanks.
[Read the article: Obama's borrowed words]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've been pretty critical of some of Joan's arguments and posts. But I do genuinely appreciate that she is willing to accept that most of us support Obama because of his positions on issues, because of his voting record, because of his experience and education (how nice would it be to have someone in the Oval Office who actually understands and respects the constitution!), and because (in my case, anyway) we luv Michelle.
For me, the plagiarism issue was a non starter because Obama has never claimed to have written every word in each of his speeches; because Patrick has admitted that they have worked on speeches together. All political speech writers like to borrow clever phrases and one-liners that they know will move a crowd. It's different than a political reporter who lifts paragraphs or unique descriptives from another writer and publishes them under her own byline. Furthermore, if you've ever found yourself transfixed by a black preacher on cable access TV or if you've seen any film footage of Martin Luther King, you know what Obama is trying to do and where he is coming from. So, you know, whatever.
As you might expect from an Obama supporter, I was really bothered by Hillary's claim that this is the first time that the press has been fair. I was bothered by her camp trying to distance itself from its role in creating and promoting the story and I was completely turned off by the assertion that it is not a big deal when Hillary uses someone else's words but it is when Obama does.
-
Anon @ 4:31 ; I hardly know where to begin.
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's Texas-size moment ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Okay. This racist black and spoiled child would like a citation, some evidence, or any proof that McCain will carry California and New Jersey 12:1 against Obama on the backs of the Latin and Asian vote.
Because all of the news sources that I could find say that Obama is the candidate that can beat McCain in the general election.
like this one:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/
general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html
or this one:
http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/2008/
presidential-matchups/barack-obama-vs-john-mccain.html
even Fox News agrees here:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/02/21/fox-news-poll-obama-
has-slim-edge-over-mccain-half-would-never-vote-for-clinton/
Thanks.
-
Some perspective
[Read the article: MSNBC's Shuster returns from suspension]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]With all due respect, I think a lot of the criticism that Shuster has received has missed the point.
As a journalist on a national news channel, Shuster should have known better. But no one in their right mind could really believe that Shuster was accusing Hillary of soliciting sexual partners for her daughter in exchange for money or favor. C'mon. What Shuster was, awkwardly, trying to bring up was the fact that Chelsea Clinton has been visibly uncomfortable campaigning for her mother. Chelsea has expressed her discomfort with being in the spotlight and with public speaking. What, I believe, Shuster was trying to ask, was if it was appropriate of Hillary to ask Chelsea to campaign for her despite the fact that Chelsea has seemed so obviously uncomfortable? I have not doubt that Chelsea wants her mother to be president and that she believes in Hillary's candidacy. The question, and it is a fair one, is would Chelsea be such a presence for her mother's campaign if Hillary weren't losing among youth and college voters so badly?
Womdering if Obama supporters would like it if Shuster had asked if it seemed like Michelle was getting pimped out, again, completely misses the point. Michelle has been an enthusiastic supporter of her husband from the very first day. She has relished the opportunity to speak to thousands of voters about why she thinks her husband is the best candidate. If Michelle had not been campaigning and then was brought out to try to attract the "female" vote, you might have a point. Similarly, no one would ask if Bill Clinton were getting "pimped out" because, just like Michelle, there is no doubt that Bill Clinton enjoys campaigning and believes in his candidate. To make the comparison between Chelsea Clinton, a woman in her late 20's, who is the main draw at campaign events at colleges around the country and Obama's daughters, who are both under 10 years old and who have never been a key part of his campaign, is disingenous.
The more interesting results of this whole dust-up are:
1) an examination of the use of language. How different generations and ethnic and gender groups can interpret words so differently. As a former semiotics student, it's fascinating to look at the transformations that are happening in American English as sub-cultures become more mainstream.
2) How far can the press go in criticizing a member of a political candidate's family before the public calls foul. Bill Clinton is to a certain extent excempt because of his political history, but is Michelle, with her very visible part of Obama's campaign, fair game, is Chelsea, are McCain's children or his wife?
3) How far can a politician go in silencing the press because of a perceived insult to a family member before first amendment questions and questions about the abuse of power get raised? Should Obama boycott Fox News because of the "lynching" comment? Should Obama pressure Fox News to change their pattern of racism, ignorance and intolerance, going so far as to threaten to boycott Fox News if changes are not made? Is this a legitimate use of his authority? Is it a suppression of Fox News' right to free speech or is it a legitimate response to hate speech?
There is a bigger picture here people.