Letters to the Editor
uncle ovipositor
Published Letters: 75 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Some equivalencies here
[Read the article: Hillary and the mean kids on the bus]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What's funny to me about all of this is that I know more about the relationship between HRC and the press corps than I do about the press' actual reporting on her, mostly because I get my news here and CSPAN.
I think HRC has been pretty dismissive of people who might pull her off message, be it citizens or the press. Showing up on the press bus the day of the caucus with bagels only makes that seem worse.
I don't find it surprising that people who feel snubbed by her will be cold towards her in person.
The implication that their being cold to her on the bus has affected their coverage, though... I don't have the information one way or another to comment on that. I'm quite confident that their coverage has been uniformly bad, but I make that assumption without feeling obliged to back it up with research. But is it worse for her because nobody in the press likes her? And is she in any way responsible for that?
I don't have any answers.
-
One other factor regarding profitability
[Read the article: It's official: Radiohead's experiment worked, kind of]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm pretty sure that even selling less than half as many CDs as they did "Hail", they'll make significantly more on the CD sales for the simple reason that their percentage per unit is much, much higher. They don't have to pay a label, only distributors and manufacturers. And their ad budget's probably pretty cheap as well. My guess would be that they as a band are netting 50% - 80% per unit, as opposed to the 10% that they likely got from their previous label.
Them's good profits.
-
I've been thinking about this a lot lately
[Read the article: Obama and Clinton on Reagan and Republicans]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And I do agree with Obama, ultimately. The republicans of the eighties had big ideas about what was going wrong with the country and how to address it. They were in touch with the mood of the people, and convinced them that they knew how to address those issues.
In the same sense that the democrats of the eighties were applying the same tired logic to problems, the republicans are doing so now. They honestly believe there's no problem that can't be fixed with a tax cut.
As far as the battles of the sixties go, those are well past over. People have moved on. The issues still most definitely remain, but the context is different because the world is different. How we address social injustice now is entirely different from how we addressed it then, and a bulldozer just won't work the same way it once did. Let's be honest: the sixties were hugely divisive, and for many people that was their appeal. Right versus wrong, good versus evil. I'm in my thirties and I'm much more interested in fair.
As far as this ad goes, it is out of context. The implication from the Clinton campaign is that Obama is secretly a republican. The point that he was making is that the republicans were the ones pitching the idea of doing things differently.
-
"prophet"?
[Read the article: Mitt Romney's Mormon detour]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is the word "prophet" in quotes in the sub head? Seems odd to be isolating that and not, say, "religion". Or "nomination" for the conspiracy-minded amongst you. Or even "vital signs", since those inarguably don't exist for a campaign but are metaphorical.
-
typo
[Read the article: Is Hillary Clinton's campaign in trouble?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I believe in the first paragraph you meant Washington, DC, not state.
-
Glenn Greenwald got this one right
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hate to pile on, but I value your writing a lot, and it's disappointing to see this article.
You're implying there's wrong doing where there isn't. You're not backing it up with anything but inuendo. It's not the level of journalism you usually deliver.
-
A minor point
[Read the article: War? What war?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The number of American soldiers is at almost 4,000. We've sent a lot of civilians over as contractors that have died as well, and although those numbers aren't well documented, they're at a minimum 240 and likely around 1,000.
I do think it's important to keep in mind, along with the number of Iraqis our war has killed.
-
@ northstardon
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's long strange journey on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for writing that. While I will definitely vote for either democratic candidate, and think that Clinton has some very excellent qualities, again and again I come up against her hyper-calculated view of almost every issue. From her TV laugh to her state-by-state persona I see nothing but calculation. It's a long-standing and unfortunate DNC/DLC concept that in order to get votes you have to pretend to be exactly like the peole you want to vote for you ("You're from New York? Why, SO AM I!"). It's disappointing, especially since she can be wonderfully genuine when caught off guard.
She has staked her claims as to who she is and where she's from based more on who she's talking to than on what she thinks. A degree of calculation is to be expected from any politician because it's necessary and useful for getting things done, and Obama has certainly engaged in it as well (such as his "present" votes in the Illinois senate), but all of that has to be balanced with principle. I see less of that in Clinton than I want in a president.
What I take away from Joan Walsh's comments is that she sees too much emphasis on principle in Obama and not enough getting things done. She seems to almost instinctively doubt any discussion of principle guiding actions. Fair enough. It's going to take a balance of those and many other things to put this country back together.
I do find it odd, however, that she's of a generation supposedly guided by principles and I'm of one supposedly guided by greed and self-interest. Not that I think either stereotype stands up to even a little scrutiny, it's just somewhat ironic.
And really, Ms Walsh - Obamatons? Why not Obaminations? Maybe Obamanazis? There are obviously those who blindly go for either candidate, but that's assumed - it's been a political reality as long as you or I have been alive. I don't think calling them names does much for the discussion. Just my opinion.