Letters to the Editor
brewmn
Published Letters: 113 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Krugman's Column Isn't About 1980...
[Read the article: Stop the New York Times Op-Ed food fight!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...the Point of his column is that the media still, today, clings to this notion that a majority of the country is conservative. If but for the incompetence and "liberalism (?!)" of George Bush, Republicans would be well on their way to a historic realignment. The conventional wisdom, today, is bullshit.
As Krugman notes, America is becoming less and less white daily. Therefore, the Republicans seem to have a two-prong strategy: lock up the nativist white vote, and suppress the voting rights of minorities. This explains the fiasco in Ohio in 2004, the US Attorney purge, and a below-the-radar movement to legitimize things like mandatory IDs at the voting booth, a tactic clearly discriminatory in effect, and soon to be validated by the conservative-led Supreme Court.
The increasingly hate-filled appeals of the Republican Party, combined with evermore stringent restrictions (even to the point of criminal prosecution) on who may vote, is a problem we are facing today. And this is a direct legacy of the success of Reagan's racist appeals in 1980.
-
Another Troubling Thing...
[Read the article: The NYT's Michael Cooper demonstrates what real reporting is]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...about her response is her statement that chatter about Obama's Muslism has "reached a fever pitch." I'm pretty attuned to political discourse, and I've hardly heard a word about this since CNN debunked the story in the spring.
Just who are the WaPo writers and editors listening to if they feel this story is important enough to address in a front-page article?
-
Alot of Republicans on This Thread...
[Read the article: Clinton strategist: Sorry about -- cough, cocaine! -- that Obama drug story]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...I thought Democrats were supposed to be the ones who didn't get apoplectic over casual drug use in one's adolescence or early adulthood. But once again, Hillary and her supporters show that they have more in common with Republicans than with liberal Democrats.
And if you think anyone with half a brain doesn't see through your desperate, transparent attempt to stop Hillary's slide by hiding behind a tree and yelling "Boo! Cocaine!!" you're sadly mistaken.
Finally, I'd turn your central argument in this thread back on you: if Hillary's losing ground at such a rapid pace because of the tepid criticism she's receiving from Obama and Edwards, how the hell do you expect her not to be in the mid-twenties approvalwise when the Republicans get through with her?
-
Column
[Read the article: Why conservatives love Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"But Obama and his supporters must cherish no illusions about what will happen to him if he vanquishes Clinton."
We don't. But based on her fumbling, scattershot, borderline racist attacks on Obama, we do worry about her ability to handle the slime the Republicans do throw at someone who already hovers in the 40+ disapproval range.
-
Big Time BS
[Read the article: The Bhutto test]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now you're citing Chris Matthews as an authority? When has he been right about anything? The man's mentally unbalanced.
I thought Salon was a liberal website. New flash, Joan: Hillary Clinton is NOT a liberal. Where were you when her husband, according to most sources with the wholehearted encouragement of his wife, was gutting welfare and the US's manufacturing base?
Your featured post ("Clinton Gets Serious") and this slam at Obama show that you're just another wannabe member of the Beltway establishment.
As to the substance of this issue, what the hell difference does it make how candidates respond rhetorically to this crisis? I would be much more interested in how they act in response, after assessing the situation. And the criticism that the candidates are making it all about them is media blindness at its worst. In your obsession with the horse race and how every issue affects their electoral chances, how else can they respond except with spin?
-
rebecalouise
[Read the article: Obama's European problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This doens't come out of left field. It's the second column in as many weeks from Conason attacking Obama.
The problem with Joe, Paul Krugman, and many other keepers of the liberal flame during the Bush years is that they think Clinton is the best we can do. What they seem not to understand is that the Clintons do not share their commitment to liberalism. On a right to left continuum, Bill Clinton was a center-right president. He was no liberal.
And all avaiable evidence suggests that Hillary will be even more solicitous of and beholden to the large corporate interests running our government and destroying our democracy.
Conason doesn't seem to undertsand that the Republicans have fucked things up so badly that Democrats should strive to re-align our politics leftward in 2008. The pain of the Bush years will soon fade, and we may not have another chance this ripe for change for a generation.
Conason supports Hillary because he believes she will be competent and progressive in moderate, incremental ways; in other words she would be better than any of the Republicans running. And she probably would. It's just we have an opportunity to do so much more than Hillary's record suggests she is capable of.
That said, the argument that Obama has been expending much more energy on running for president than on his senatorial duties is almost certainly true. However, to suggest that his lack of effort as subcommittee chairman is because he's lazy, or doesn't care about foreign policy, is a cheap shot, more appropriate of a political hack than a supposedly objective, albeit liberal, columnist.
As was noted above, the Dem establishment is getting terrified that their wooden, unlikeable standard bearer is going to get beat by an "upstart." Don't worry too much, Joe. It'll be better for all of us when she loses.
-
Uh, Joan...
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's softer side]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"My heart went out to her; I can't honestly be politically dispassionate about it."
No shit, Sherlock.
And your defense against bias are your two Obama columns, where you basically say "people find him inspiring, and I'm still trying to figure out why."
I don't care who you support. Just drop the pretense of objectivity, OK?
-
Uh, thatboy...
[Read the article: Where would Clinton be without Edwards?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"I say Obama should drop out because he's bleeding votes from Edwards."
...Obama beat Edwards by twenty percent. Not even close.