Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1264 Editor's Choice: 102
-
@furtail
[Read the article: Clinton: "This campaign goes on"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since no one else has called you out, I will.
You called Hillary Rodham Clinton a hag. I hope your dread of older women has not swayed your vote, because that is a pathetic excuse for a democratic "choice." And since you are apparently pro-Obama as well as anti-menopausal-female, if you happen to have a couple free brain cells rolling around in your skull, I would suggest that you think about the way Obama talks and consider why he does not call his opponent sexist, ageist names.
Figured it out yet? If not, I hope you will before you post again.
-
Agreed, SocsandTwigs
[Read the article: Clinton: "This campaign goes on"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think that "dangerous world" gambit might have played in certain focus groups, but to me the most dangerous thing about the world right now is the people in charge of our country. Somehow I don't think that's what HRC had in mind when she said it.
-
Thanks for the commentary, Alex!
[Read the article: Yes, Watson can list Obama's accomplishments -- now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I like that you're taking more ownership of the column these days.
I wonder if you could address the oft-posted e-mail about Obama's and Clinton's respective records, pointing out (apparently falsely) that Clinton has been involved with only 20 bills in the Senate, while Obama has been involved with hundreds. As one poster pointed out a few threads down, their records are apparently quite comparable. I'd love to see you tease out the realities on War Room for all to see, as apparently this e-mail has reached many an inbox (not mine, yet...).
-
Well, I didn't think the wording was dubious either,
[Read the article: Yes, Watson can list Obama's accomplishments -- now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but listing an attempt as an accomplishment IS a little odd. And even if you don't agree, I thought it was interesting to see the details of that (lost) fight.
But overall I thought the blog entry dealt with the issue swiftly, and with good, self-effacing humor. It reminds me of something I have seen repeatedly from the Obama campaign itself (and I'm sure the blog post and its tone were managed at least in part by the campaign): that if you take a petty, negative attack that has a grain of truth to it and say, "Yeah, that was pretty dumb of me," that attitude goes a really long way toward defusing the bomb that was supposed to go off. A few years back, I read about a study on malpractice suits; it turned out that if a doctor or hospital screwed up and apologized for it outright to the patient's family, the chance of a malpractice suit was greatly reduced. Unfortunately, the impulse of most doctors (being humans, of course) is to try to lie, cover up mistakes, or shift blame. I think Obama's easy, self-effacing apologies are a great defense. If you can admit you did a small thing wrong, people are much less likely to suspect that you have done or would do or will do something really horrible and then lie about it.
-
I don't understand what "unofficial" means
[Read the article: What happened to all of the votes?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]if the only reason they're re-counting was because some of the counts were so obviously mistaken. Wouldn't the first count have stood as the "official" one if they hadn't realized they had to re-count? Are the initial counts we hear usually the "unofficial" ones? And are they also usually the final, "official" ones if the random checks seem OK? I am confused.
And am I the only one who is mildly annoyed by the tax system but would rather see the byzantine electoral system simplified and standardized FIRST?
-
Thank you!!!
[Read the article: The quest for universal healthcare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm so glad to read this article before I vote. Plus, I was getting a little worried that you had jumped ship, Mr. Shapiro. I'm so glad you haven't.
-
I am uncomfortable with anonymous sources,
[Read the article: NYT breaks long-rumored story on possible relationship between McCain, lobbyist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but remember that Watergate was broken by an anonymous source, whose identity was only revealed after his death. I'm pretty sick of "senior administration officials" being quoted "on background," though, so it's become harder to tell when it's appropriate and when it isn't. In a story like this, it generally has been, but the overuse for propaganda purposes in the last seven years makes us all wary of anonymous sources. And it sounds like a team of reporters got independent corroboration of this story, which is something. But I'll take a wait-and-see approach. Maybe it will grow legs and start to croak, and maybe not. I do share Drudge's skepticism about the timing - but I don't really think he's in a position to criticize other people's journalistic creds.
-
"I frankly don't care to pay for the smokers and fast food junkies"
[Read the article: The quest for universal healthcare]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, no one does. However, if you have health insurance you ARE paying for them. That is what health insurance is already about. It is privatized socialism. It is also lining a lot of executive's pockets, not to mention wall-papering their yachts.
It makes me sick (almost literally) to hear people talk about a single-payer plan as "socialized medicine." That implies that the government would run the hospitals and hire the doctors and own the pharmacies, which just isn't the case. Anyone who knows anything about Walter Reed would be right to be afraid of that. But Medicare, though imperfect, has actually worked fairly well. It is not socialized medicine but single-payer insurance. I am as leery as the next person about anything our government gets its hands into, but that is mainly because they so often get on their knees for private interests. Before anything else, I want to see campaign finance, campaign law, and electoral reform. Harrow the hallways, chambers, and back rooms of Congress with REAL reforms, and then let's talk about single-payer insurance. That's the only way any of it will ever work - when the government is serving the people again instead of corporate interests.