Letters to the Editor
Dmagnificent
Published Letters: 124 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Pathetic Smear Attempt
[Read the article: Last thoughts]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]WHY, OH WHY couldn't Time have hired Joan Walsh instead of Michael Scherer? Although, truthfully, People or Us would be more appropriate for someone so much more focused on Hillary-as-celebrity than on political thinking.
Those voices saying that Obama's popularity could be the "Republican Party's last laugh" are just in your head, Joan. Obama has won Iowa and won it convincingly and your precious, unelectable Hillary will probably finish in third. But then, you already suspected that, which is why you chose to pre-emptively cast the Obama win in a bad light.
Shameful.
-
This, not Mitchell's, is the useless story
[Read the article: Andrea Mitchell's strange attack against Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Perhaps someone at Salon should go back and read this article. No skipping words, either. Words like "funeral" and "dirge-like", when used to describe the emotional state of a crowd which moments later is enthusiastically beaming waves of happiness and cheer to the cameras, are kind of important. The event seemed manufactured to Ms Mitchell because she saw a bunch of stunned zombies shamble into a room and become merry revellers when the cameras came on, not because they "switched rooms".
Lastly, I have watched a LOT of election coverage over the years and I have seen a LOT of rooms of enthusiastic supporters gathered BEFORE the results are announced. When the results came in unfavorably, the crowds lost their cheer. Yes, they would perk up when the candidate appeared, but hiding that middle part when they are noticably bummed IS manufacturing the event. All election nights are manufactured to a certain degree, as the article states, but degree matters. This is just another case of of Salon attacking anyone but Hillary when Hillary gets busted.
-
Seems innocuous to me
[Read the article: Bill Bennett knows black people]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't really see a problem with Bennett's comments. Pointing out that Obama has succeeded where Jackson and Sharpton have failed is not racist. Obama has run for president as an American, not as a black American. His experiences as a black American are, of course, a vital part of who he is, but he is running a campaign that is designed to appeal to what we we have in common, not what drives apart. Race was at the core of Jackson and Sharpton's campaigns (and entire careers), but it just part of who Obama is.
Pointing out this difference is not racist. Bennett's comments seem genuine to me, unlike Joan Walsh's backhanded attacks on Obama in evey article she writes. Obama is taking a different path and, at least last night, that path was clearly the right one. Obama reached out to America and Iowa reached back. Clinton has reached out primarily to women and played the gender card at every turn, not to mention the race card (How many times did we see black Clinton backers refer to Bill as "our first black President"?).
And, for the record, I refuse to use the term African-American (or Asian-, or Martian-) because I feel it is more divisive than it is culturally-sensitive. So don't read too much into my use of the word "black".
-
Another Pointless Obama Article :(
[Read the article: Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds warn of "social unraveling" if Obama loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This has to be one of the most pointless articles ever. It even repeats the mischaracterizations of Bill Bennett's innocuous comments. (Bennett's diction makes his statements easily twisted, but his basic point that Obama won because unlike previous black candidates, he isn't trying to be the "black candidate" is perfectly valid. One issue candidates don't win and being the "black candidate" has limited the prospects of Jackson and Sharpton. To make it clear from the start that you are running to be the President for ~20% of the population is electoral suicide and Obama has avoided it. Even Clinton is targeting 51% of the populace.)
More importantly, the article makes claims about what the GOP will do, but fails to balance that by considering the consequences for the GOP. Race-tinged attacks on Obama, should he be the nominee, will blow up in Republicans' faces. The level of outrage at racist attacks would be enormous, as would be the response if a Katherine Harris- Ken Blackwell type actively tried to suppress the Obama vote. But, of course there would be no riot-like response if Obama lost fair and square. It demeans Salon to even respond to such ludicrous, racist speculation.
-
Uninformed Opinion
[Read the article: A Democratic donnybrook]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Disclaimer*- I have been moving and couldn't catch the debate, so all of my knowledge of it comes from this article. There may still be value in my thoughts because a lot of people will get their debate information the same way.
Based on the article, I would say that Hillary may be in trouble. Getting shrill and attacking after Iowa feeds into some of the negative perceptions of her that already exist. And her "we're looking for ... a president we can count on, that you know where that president is yesterday, today and tomorrow" comment sounds like something Bush would say, which doesn't exactly make the case for change.
Obama, on the other hand, seemed to be playing from the right playbook. Rule #1 for a front runner is DON'T BLOW IT. If Obama looked "presidential" and avoided gaffes, he did his job.
Richardson may not have a chance, but showing himself as being somehow above the bickering kids was what he needed to do. And getting the best line of the debate never hurts.
Edwards just doesn't do it for me, so it is hard for me to comment on him. He let Cheney walk all over him 4 years ago and brought nothing to the ticket for Kerry. I don't like the way he seems to trot out his wife to make the remarks that anyone not dying would be criticized for. Personally, I would be concerned about having a President who put his job before his dying wife and even more concerned about one who put his dying wife before his job. It is an unpleasant topic, but it IS (tragically) relevant to the job he is seeking, even if it is something we can't talk about.