Letters to the Editor
crooked_teeth
Published Letters: 51
-
What's so Historic about Peace, Love, and Understanding?
[Read the article: The comeback chick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey Joan..
I know it's not as historically significant but shouldn't something be said for the story of the son of a mill worker. A man who actually knows what it means to be poor in a visceral way that neither Clinton or Obama could ever understand. There's something to be said for a country that allows a man or woman the opportunity to do that and rise to the highest levels of government. And even though that trick has all ready been done before by a man from Hope, I still feel it's a chronically underreported story in a mainstream media so obsessed with two demographic minorities.
I'm not a woman, but I am not white either. Perhaps when I was younger and greener I would have been more thrilled with the wave of coolness that Obama has created. Today I hear his marvelous speeches and I think: I'm over the whole Jack and Bobby thing. Because beyond the flowery concepts there has to be substance.
A woman being elected the leader of a country is nothing new. Members of oppressed minority groups have risen to lead countries in other parts of the world. To me, it's nothing new. I'm not obsessed with "firsts". That said, yes, it is important for those things to occur in the country that everyone looks to.
It's worth reminding anyone who cares that of all the THREE major democratic candidates, there is only ONE who has legitimate leads against the main Republican rivals. And that person also happens to be the only authentic progressive liberal in the race. I don't know if it's historic that the American people of todays political climate favor a liberal over a conservative in a poll, but, all things considered, it certainly is newsworthy. No?
-
re: the comeback chick
[Read the article: The comeback chick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Frank Lutz says the polling tracks will be unpredictable for the rest of the season.
Matthews had a sharp story about Nixon's voice cracking during some emotional public moment and afterwards Nixon said to someone, How did you like my voice cracking there at the end?
Tail wagging the dog..
-
ewww..Dowd
[Read the article: Oops, she did it again]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I second the young people never allowing themselves to be exposed to Maureen Dowd's Carrie-Sadshaw-for-political-personalities shtick.
-
Eat me...again...
[Read the article: President Nader? Maybe third time's the charm]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's beyond me why moderately informed individuals would have a problem with Ralph Nader. He would be -- as he was in 2000 and 2004 -- the only populist, the only authentic progressive, and the only candidate with the courage of real principle available in the race.
There are some of us who clamor for what Ralph Nader offers to the dialogue. With John Edwards dropping out of the race I would give Nader consideration. Absolutely. Would I represent 1% of the population? Quite likely. But I suppose it's beyond most of Salon's devoted readers to comprehend why a person would do something as heinous as support Ralph Nader. ::gasp::
You see -- many of you (still!) fail to grasp the fundamental problems with Gore and Kerry and Obama or Clinton. If we wanted to vote for those people, we would. If those candidates truly spoke to our interests, they'd have our support. Nader never took a vote away from Gore because none of us wanted to vote for Gore to begin with. If anything, it's as Nader said several years ago, Gore took votes away from Nader.
(I'll go ahead and spell out the obvious for some of you: we don't support Nader and his bleeding-hearted ilk because we necessarily believe he's going to be the next President of the United Sates. You can fill in the rest.)
So this misguided animosity people have towards Nader is unfounded and laughable. It speaks to the inadequacies of your own candidates and the cowardice of your own principles on the role of government in effecting change in people's lives (assuming you believe government even has a role).
So flay poor ole' Ralph all you like. Brand me a blind, ignorant idealist with no understanding of how politics in America really, really works. The importance of candidates like Nader and Edwards and Kucinich is to have individuals who feed the dialogue of progressive ideals. Lest we all become Gore/Bush/Clinton/Romney drones.
(For anyone interested, I do think GWB's foreign policy has been criminally vulgar. And if I had to do it again I still would have voted for Nader in 2000.)