Letters to the Editor
Timelagged
Published Letters: 244 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Normally, yes
[Read the article: How the long primary battle helps Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The way Clinton is waging her campaign, nope.
That's exactly the problem.
In normal times and within accepted norms of campaigning, this would all be true.
When you start praising the Republican and bashing the Democratic front runner, comparing him badly to the Republican, this is not only unheard of, it's highly damaging to your own party.
She must know that he's almost certainly going to be the nominee now. So telling the world that "McCain brings experience....Obama brings one speech he gave" is good for the Democrats?
That's why people are guessing that she must be thinking "me or no one" or at least "me in 2012 after McCain has soured people even further on the GOP". Because she's acting like she's campaiging for McCain, and against Obama.
It's precisely because of how Clinton has campaigned that so many are so furious with her. And why this analysis is off base.
Normally, yes. Given Clinton's scorched Earth campaigning, nope. Doesn't work. It's bad for the party. It's horrible for the party. John McCain is actually getting a free ride, right now, and Hillary praising him at every turn is not helping.
I just hope some adult steps in soon, and throws enough wieght behind Obama that she loses big enough to get the picture.
-
Great
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So if this is true, and I'm not assuming it is for certain, but if it is, then Edwards is basically helping sink the Democrats' chances by throwing the equivalent of Newt Gingrich's tantrum after what he saw as being disrespected on a flight one day with the President because he didn't get seated up front.
Would Edward really make a decision of this magnitude based on who acted "aloof" to him? Are we dealing with high school children here?
I hope to god this isn't true.
If it is, I hope Edwards realizes how bad this makes him look and grows a thicker skin as well as a spine and comes out for someone.
If it isn't, then making a declaration will squelch the rumors it's now going to create.
Or else confirm them, depending on who he chooses to support.
Your move, John.
-
-- L.W.M is correct
[Read the article: The John McCain "centrism" fallacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The responses to LWM's post contained a lot of confused and confusing missing of the point.
The Clintons pro-death penalty stance alone would plop then down squarely, and pretty far, on the right in any European democracy.
There are no absolutes and comparison is tricky. However, the intial post was about where McCain would stand on a world scale, and that's what LWM was responding to, not to what the word centrism means within a given country.
There really is no "world centrism" to speak of because the systems and beliefs are all different. But as far as the little thought experiment of plopping our politicians down in say France, then almost all of ours would end up on the right without any doubt, and McCain would be so far right he'd be off the scale.
-
-Elephantman
[Read the article: The John McCain "centrism" fallacy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You may have missed this part of Greenwald's article:
The indisputable fact is that McCain, on foreign policy issues, holds views far to the Right and far outside of mainstream American public opinion.
Thus not only did you not address the actual issues raised, I suspect you didn't even read the article.
-
Oh my god
[Read the article: My new start-up: I Google For You]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]When nerds make jokes...
What's the digital equivilant of a rimshot?
Thanks folks, my LED will be lit all evening, and don't forget to tip your server....
-
Exschmerience
[Read the article: McCain, Obama in spat]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There are two people who have more experience in the actual job of being President than anyone alive.
One of these is George W Bush.
Anyone think this makes him a good choice for next President?
So much for experience.
That single insight, if anyone stopped to think about it, should end the "experience" gambit once and for all, on all parts.
-
But you're said it all right here:
[Read the article: The U.S. establishment media in a nutshell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]makes it only that much worse, particularly given that it's this dynamic, more than anything else, that determines the outcome of our elections.
Of course it does, and they know that it does. It drives the outcome of our elections. Which is why they write about these things. The vapid Hollywood tabloid style topics are what determine elections because this is what these "journalists" write about, and they write about them because they know that people vote based on these kinds of things in this country.... in great part because that's what these fools write about.
It's the absolutely inevitable outcome of an entirely market and consumer driven society which races inevitably to the lowest common denominator to get the most readers/votes/customers. It's the same reason that Hollywood movies are so vapid and sentationalist, it's the same reason that a lot of thing are the way they are.
It's far deeper than any problem than can be approached with solutions like "Let's hire better journalists" or let's teach them better at journalism schools, or anything of the sort. It's a feedback loop that means that most people ARE interested only in the horse race and the cosmetic, in the utterly backwards view of things seen always from the candidate's "chances" and how the candidate can manipulate people in public relations sorts of ways, because after years of this, that's all people do care about. Thus that's what these drivel-mongers write about.
It is, in other words, the absolutely inevitable result of an entirely market-drive capitalism that's so afraid of anything with a whiff of "socialism" that it eschews any sense of civic responsibility, long-sightedness, or truly common good and opts always to protect making a fast buck at the expense of all else.
There is no solution until some very fundamental things change about the very system, and that ain't happening any time soon.
-
Er: But you'Ve said it all right here.
[Read the article: The U.S. establishment media in a nutshell]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sheesh.