Letters to the Editor
Drewonimo
Published Letters: 135 Editor's Choice: 4
-
@Canuckistan Bob
[Read the article: Clinton endorses Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I love your Single Issue stance! I wholeheartedly agree: we need to do more than just beat the GOP; we need to discredit their way of doing business, their agenda of divide and conquer, their trashing of the Constitution, etc etc.
I appreciate Obama's MO of not leading a campaign that debases his opponents or uses personal attacks -- even on Republicans. He's making a very important distinction that there are individual Republicans who have honest disagreements about the role of government, and the way to address problems. But I do have a problem with the idea that we are going to somehow overcome the gross abuses of power and the way the law has been twisted by playing nice through November and then forgiving and forgetting. I don't think that Obama is saying that, thankfully.
When we defeat this mob there needs to be lots of light shed on what's happened. It's not about getting even but about regaining our standards of decency and democracy.
There is one word I am still sorely missing in this year's contest: accountability. If George Bush was supposed to restore "honor and dignity to the White House" (obviously a joke -- and not even just in retrospect), I think our mantra needs to be that we are going to restore accountability.
Fiscally.
Legally.
Electorally.
There doesn't need to be a witch hunt for there to be accountability. But the rule of law does matter -- and principles of ethics need to be demonstrated and elevated to their rightful place in public service. I seriously hope the Democratic Party not only makes this a theme of the election -- but, more importantly, a theme in their governance.
-
@Dalivus
[Read the article: Clinton endorses Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You make several good points but I think you're overstating your case to say that Jesse Jackson paved no paths for Obama. Lumping him in with Farrakhan and Sharpton, both opportunists, is unfair and negates the legacy that is Jackson's due.
I am actually not that big of a fan of Jesse Jackson -- but he did more than just turn out the black vote from time to time or pander to a single minority. The connection I see between what he sought to do and what Obama has achieved is his focus on building coalitions. Jesse Jackson didn't just make nice words about the Rainbow Coalition; he walked the walk and truly built a coalition in places on various issues. His background is also in grassroots organizing and his base, Chicago, was so racially divided and people of color so left out of the process when was getting started, that Obama's progress there had to have benefitted from Jackson' prior organizing. He deserves at least some credit for giving a voice not just to black folks -- but to the poor, to veterans, to unions and the like.
Yes, I can see that it's simplistic to say that there's a direct line from Jackson to Obama and therefore Obama owes it all to him. But it's also not true that Jackson didn't advance the cause for everybody fighting for progressive ideals. He did. And he didn't just scare away white voters with his talk of minority grievances. My mother, then a white woman in her fifties, voted for Jesse Jackson because her "single issue" at the time was improving public schools and he was both articulate and focused on the inequities in the public school system.
Cheers.
-
Who picks the veep?
[Read the article: Obama's vetting problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]These committees doubtless do important work but the VP candidates are chosen by the candidates and, if they don't work out, it's the candidate's responsibility.
I agree that Gore was an inspired choice for Bill Clinton but, to my knowledge, it was Clinton's idea and he's the one that made it happen.
I can't imagine that Barack Obama doesn't have his own strong ideas of who he wants and is using the committee to vet them and give him feedback. But who's on the committee isn't going to matter a whole helluva lot, except for PR purposes.
Unless, of course, your GWB, and you allow the head of your committee to go through the whole charade and then pick himself. Ladies and gentlemen, was that not the biggest Red Flag raised in political history? Poor George probably had no clue what he was getting into and sighed a sigh of relief that someone else had walked him through his first tough decision.
-
RE: the tabloidization of Salon
[Read the article: Obama's vetting problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Salon isn't breaking this story or giving it any more creedence than it deserves. They are doing us a service by letting us know what's out there in the big bad world and giving us a head's up that others are going to take issue with it.
If this were merely a rumor, then yes, it would be tabloidization because they would be taking something that may have no merit and giving it merit by repeating it. In this case, the story is the perception of dirty hands. It doesn't matter whether there's a crime or a piece of bad judgment or really innocently being at the wrong place at the wrong time. The perception is real and will have to be dealt with whether we like it or not. I, for one, prefer to know about it.
Is it a big problem? No. It's pretty small. But If we ask Salon to just ignore what others are trying to make a big deal about, then how are we going to effectively respond if we remain uninformed?
Relax.
-
AKA
[Read the article: Obama's vetting problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You have a persistence and iron-clad quality that reminds me of somebody....
Plus you can be damn funny.