Letters to the Editor
Ben Alpers
Published Letters: 74 Editor's Choice: 2
-
What's Really Interesting....
[Read the article: The big secret about secret societies]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"No, these Rosicrucians preserving their secret histories, passing them down through the ages encoded in secret books that mean the opposite of what they say, working to alter the lives of empires, lurking behind the thrones of kings and popes. Come on! Secret societies, Freemasons, Illuminati haven't had real power in history. Can't you see . . . the truth is so much more interesting. Secret societies have not had power in history. But the notion that secret societies have had power in history has had power in history."
--John Crowley, The Solitudes
-
Nader and the Green Party
[Read the article: Ralph Nader loves John McCain]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Ralph Nader has never been a member of the Green Party.
In 2004, he dropped out of the race for the Green Party's nomination, then he tried to get the Green Party to endorse his independent candidacy. Understandably uninterested in backing a candidate who had no interest in building the party (and, not coincidentally, disagreed with the party on a number of our core issues) the Green Party decided instead to run one of our own, David Cobb. Cobb was very open about pursuing a "smart-states strategy" that focused on solidly red and solidly blue states. He did so in part because he understood that there was a real difference between Kerry and Bush, however inadequate the pro-war Massachusetts Senator was.
Of course, the Naderites accused the Green Party of doing a secret deal with the Democrats. Without an iota of evidence this lie has been repeated for over four years now. And it's repeated yet again upthread:
In 2004, the Green Party made an agreement with the Democrats to not run anyone seriously.
Bullshit.
Nader has turned himself into an almost entirely irrelevant political joke. I say "almost entirely irrelevant" because I believe that while he has lost the capacity to further damage the Democratic Party, he and his supporters can still do further damage to the Greens.
At any rate, I'd recommend that Democrats simply ignore his 2008 campaign. It's what Nader deserves. But if you insist on obsessively denouncing Nader, kindly leave the Green Party out of it!
-
@hrauscher
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the last week, the odds have shifted significantly in the direction of Clinton becoming the Democratic nominee. Obama is now walking a tightrope on race while the ground underneath the candidates has shifted to terrain better suited to Clinton's policy surefootedness.
The odds have not shifted at all in the direction of Clinton becoming the nominee. Simply put, Clinton cannot become the nominee unless the superdelegates decide to overturn the desires of Democratic voters. Such a coup would destroy the Democratic Party, the leadership of which can be extraordinarily strategically dense, but not utterly suicidal. Obama will get the nomination. The only question is how he'll get it and what it will be worth.
What's happened in the last week is that--in part thanks to Clinton's desperate efforts to tear Obama down and to the willingness of the media to act as stenographers for her talkingpoints--the odds have shifted significantly in the direction of a McCain presidency.
-
WaPo: Nobody in Small Town Penna Cares About Bittergate
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/18/AR2008041803024.html?hpid=topnews
Anyone expect Joan to admit she was wrong about the impact of bittergate?
I suspect that we'll soon have solid evidence that nobody other than the most devoted Clintonistas thought Obama stumbled in the debate, by which time Joan will have moved on to pimping the next manufactured scandal.
I'm a registered Independent and no particular fan of Obama, but the Clinton campaign and its KooAid drinking supporters like Joan Walsh are becoming more pathetic and embarrassing by the day. Salon.com deserves so much better than this from its editor!
Since I don't think Joan Walsh is anywhere near as dim as her columns have been for the last several months, I hope that she takes the time after this is all over to reflect on how she found herself writing such poorly argued and empty analysis week after miserable week.
-
An Unedifying Campaign
[Read the article: The endless Democratic party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In principle, long primary fights can be politically useful, for the candidates, their party, and our nation's politics.
But when two candidates who are very similar on the issues engage in a long, drawn-out primary battle, covered by the press as if it's a soap opera, and responded to by their respective supporters as if the fate of the republic hangs on the outcome, nobody benefits, with the possible exception of the other major party.
Read this thread...or for that matter any campaign-related thread on Salon.com. You'll find lots of heat, and virtually no light. Just mud slinging between Obama and Clinton supporters, as well as (often deserved) complaints about the very unbalanced coverage that Salon.com has been providing. And Salon readers are presumably better informed than your average voter (through no fault of Salon.com, it must be said).
This primary campaign is growing increasingly depressing. However it ends (and I still think it's more or less guaranteed to end with an Obama victory), I hope it ends soon!