Letters to the Editor
siberia9
Published Letters: 20 Editor's Choice: 1
-
"distinction without a difference"?
[Read the article: Barack Obama: "Committed Christian -- Called to Bring Change"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Um... last I checked, every major candidate in the race -- Democrat, Republican -- has continued to invoke God and the Christian faith in his or her respective campaigns. Perhaps not in Huckabee's fervent evangelical manner, but they've all - at the minimum - given lip service to their faith in God. The only reason Obama's campaign strategy in South Carolina poses any kind of difference is because of the smear campaign about his supposed Muslim roots. Why not pay more attention to debunking the shady lies that circulate about him and, for that matter, all the other candidates instead of focusing on what, to my mind, has already become a given in major American elections? We all know that no Democrat can move into the White House without at least saying he is fully Christian. Why not attend to *that* problem? Why not write material that seeks to inveigh against the pressures that produce the pandering to Christianity during the campaign season?
Point is, be realistic. Did you really expect Obama *not* to play up his Christianity in the Bible Belt area? Or any other candidate not to do the same? That's not news. What *might* be news: a solid cogent analysis of a segment of the American population that persistently refuses to abide by the creed to separate church and state. Why do they believe what they believe and what makes them so powerful that candidates have to bend over backwards to prove themselves worthy?
Do all of that and I might think the post would eventually be worthwhile. Until then, I have to ask: how is your post substantive, *new* news?
-
do editors read anymore?
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton on Reagan and Republicans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I would have expected you, as an editor, to be a better, more careful reader. Did you forget to read the next paragraph of Obama's response? Here, let me help you do your research:
"I think Kennedy, 20 years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we're in one of those times right now, where people feels like things as they are going right now aren't working, that we're bogged down in the same arguments that we've been having, and they're not useful. And the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out.I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates, it's all tax cuts. Well, we know, we've done that; we've tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example."
Now, as you can *read,* Obama's entire 2nd paragraph clearly debunks any idea that he was endorsing Reagan's policies or Republican policies in general. If you should be in any doubt, the line "the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out" ought to be quite clear on that point. Moreover, why do you not recognize that he also includes JFK as a "transformational" president along with Reagan? Yes, he's trying to be conciliatory, but not to the extent that you would have him be. And no amount of analysis can dismiss the fact that his statements more clearly counter your fears.
But more to the point: I know you *must* have read that paragraph, yes? Because, surely, as an *editor* with some training in the English language, you would understand that there is such a thing as context? And that to truncate quotations as you do or as the Clintons have done is not just to "overstate a little" a criticism, but to boldly lie about another candidate's words and intentions?
Before you write me off as a fanatical Obama supporter, I must tell you: I'm an avid Edwards supporter. What I take extreme offense to is the fact that you are in a position to write an Op-ed piece that could actually sway people into believing the lies that the Clintons continue to broadcast. And that you would so boldly leave out a large important, in fact defining, chunk of Obama's reply.
You are relying on the hope that your readers will not be close readers. And for someone who cares deeply about language and its ability to communicate some reflection of truth to the world, that is an utter betrayal.
Hold yourself more accountable. And if you have a preference for Hillary (which it seems quite obviously to be the case), you should hold yourself extra-accountable that your facts are straight. Just because the Clintons lie in order to sensationalize divisions within the American populace and the Democratic party, doesn't mean that you - as a journalist - have that right.
-
on Reaganism
[Read the article: Barack Obama agrees with me]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Point taken Joan -- Obama needs to change his fighting strategy.
However, re: fairness of ads and effects on the Democratic Party -- Robert Reich's post on the Clintons and the use of Reaganism may be useful to everyone. I thought it was perfectly on point:
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/01/bill-clintons-old-politics.html
And for those of you who might not remember, Robert Reich was Clinton's Secretary of Labor. Well-respected and always, I find, a voice of sage reason.