Letters to the Editor
Asher Steinberg
Published Letters: 231 Editor's Choice: 12
-
No Need For A Revote In Florida
[Read the article: Should Florida and Michigan vote again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you're not going to punish Florida by giving them no delegates, why have a revote? The original primary had both candidates' names on the ballot, and neither one campaigned, so you can't argue either had an unfair advantage. 1.5 million Democrats turned out so you can't say it wasn't a real primary. What would be gained by a revote? I'm sure Floridians were very well acquainted with the candidates' positions and rhetoric; they don't need Hillary and Obama to come to their state to find out what they stand for. Just seat the delegates according to the original results.
-
Delores:
[Read the article: Should Florida and Michigan vote again? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Only blacks were told to not vote? Blacks comprised 19% of the electorate*; they comprise only 15% of Floridians. So I don't see the evidence that black turnout was suppressed any more than white turnout.
* http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/index.html#FLDEM
-
By The Same Logic The Contemporaries of James or Joyce Would've Been Entitled To Rejoice At Either's Death
[Read the article: The man who ruined the novel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course, they were great novelists and Robbe-Grillet wasn't (though Marienbad is a great film and his screenplay is brilliant), but a writer can't be blamed for scaring off readers and causing his contemporaries to go too far in the opposite direction. Whitman had a disastrous influence on thousands of poets, but it isn't his fault that they're not Whitman. Besides, Robbe-Grillet's influence wasn't entirely negative; I like a lot of Barthelme and Barth's work. I also don't know if this more experimental stuff that you allude to at the end of your article is very good. I've seen parts of Junot Diaz and I didn't like it at all. His voice is very odd; it reminds me of one of those annoying narrators you occasionally find in bad teen movies. It's like someone's sitting next to you conversationally telling you an interminable story, replete, of course, with endless lists of meaningless details and signifiers because that's just what writers do these days. And Safran Foer... he's brilliant but to me his stuff is just really, really bad 21st century Tristram Shandy.
-
Alex, You Read Too Much Into These Memos
[Read the article: Can the Clinton campaign take the heat?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Granted I've never covered a campaign, but I tend to think that all campaigns' memos are going to be full of it. The truth is, neither campaign has any problem with going mildly negative, unless it's their opponents doing the negative campaigning, in which case they scream dirty politics. They're like lawyers. If it's to their advantage to say x, they'll say x. If it's their advantage to say the opposite of x, they'll say the opposite of x. It's your job to read all these useless memos and report on the important parts (for ex., Obama saying he's going to make a fuss of HC's tax returns is news), not to regurgitate every one and tell us how they contradict each other.
-
No, Political "Realist"
[Read the article: Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What they said was that attack ads typically contain darkened footage of people in general. This is true. Think about any ad you've ever seen where candidate A shows footage or photos of candidate B in an attempt to attack B. The footage is always darkened. It makes them look sinister and dishonest. So what you're basically saying, I guess, is it's okay to doctor footage of white candidates, but not black ones. Kind of like how it's okay to talk about George W. Bush's cocaine use but not Obama's, because talking about a black person doing coke is somehow racist. That doesn't make any sense either. Personally, I don't see the big deal. We all know he's half-black. If you're a racist, you're already voting for Clinton. Making him a tad darker won't change that. Now, if they widened his nose as dailykos alleged, that wouldn't be okay. But they didn't.
-
Oh Please
[Read the article: Why do conservatives really find the Obama campaign "scary"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No one ever put out a viral video for Bush chanting and singing his name over and over like they were Nazis and he was Hitler. It's very creepy.
-
Where's Your Susan Rice Post?
[Read the article: Obama advisor calls Clinton a "monster," apologizes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bigger story along similar lines. You have to wonder if maybe he's recruited too many academics who have never worked for a campaign or something. They just keep making trouble for him.
-
Also, I think the more offensive line of the interview was this:
[Read the article: Obama advisor calls Clinton a "monster," apologizes]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."
-
The Offensive Part Was Where She Implied Poor People/Ohioans Are Stupid
[Read the article: Obama advisor Power resigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"We f***** up in Ohio," she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win.
"You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."