Letters to the Editor
BryanS
Published Letters: 329 Editor's Choice: 1
-
@ MRMichaelson
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You said:
Tell me, if two MALE presidential candidates were running neck-and-neck in this tight primary, would we be blaming one of them as being divisive or delusional? Or would we just think they were BOTH running an amazing race and may the best MAN win? Think about this, please.
Your premise is founded on the inaccurate assertion that we have two candidates running neck-and-neck. What we have -- assuming that the rules established by the DNC are adhered to for the rest of the primary -- is a candidate who has a narrow but insurmountable lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates, and a 2-to-1 lead in contests won, not to mention unprecedented fundraising power. And he's being opposed by someone who cannot possibly win without alienating half of the party, including its most reliable block of voters.
This has been a great race, and while I don't think that there's really much harm in Hillary staying in it to the bitter end (and I do mean "bitter"), anyone who actually wants to see the Democrats win in November has to admit that, for all intents and purposes, the race should be considered over.
Think about this, please.
-
@ Sally
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're absolutely right when you say that the vast majority of lefty news and views sites overwhelmingly back Obama. But I think there's a good reason for that: he's the candidate we've all been waiting for.
Generally speaking, right-wing talking points tend to be more easily summarized than left-wing ones. Take, for example, a typical view of the war in Iraq:
From the left: "We have reached a point where there is no military solution in Iraq. Our troops have been called upon to serve much longer and harder than anyone would have expected, but they've hit a wall. At best, they can only prevent the situation from degenerating further. Iraq needs to resolve its own internal affairs, and we've seen the folly of trying to hand them freedom and democracy on a silver platter. We need to begin an orderly, phased withdrawal of our military so that they can be redeployed to areas of greater concern, like Afghanistan, or simply held in reserve to respond effectively to new threats as they present themselves. Also, in a time of economic hardship, we cannot afford to continue spending billions upon billions of dollars in a war of attrition."
From the right: "Why do you hate America so much?"
The current political discourse is so full of trivial, "gotcha" moments that it's impossible to have a substantive discussion on the issues. Only in a shallow political environment such as ours could a war hero like Max Cleland be defeated in an election because he was tarred as unpatriotic. I don't know if Obama can change that, but he's the only presidential candidate who's willing to try and talk about Really Big Things, instead of lapel flag pins and bowling scores.
So is it any wonder that smart, lefty types want to see the smart, lefty guy become the next president, instead of the also-smart woman who's not as lefty and has deliberately tried to lower the tone of the campaign by perpetuating the same "gotcha" politics that she's complained about so often in the past?
-
@ brunnhilde
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't say that you're wrong, but I really don't want to get into a chicken-or-the-egg argument.
What I will say is that it's easier to be less cynical and to act on idealistic impulses when you've got a standard-bearer to rally around.
-
Koppelman asks "what's gone wrong" with Obama campaign
[Read the article: Krugman asks "what's gone wrong" with Obama campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Alex Koppelman continues a line of negative columns about Barack Obama, using Paul Krugmann to suggest an alternative explanation for why working-class whites aren't voting for Obama.
(At least, I think that's what the front page was supposed to say.)
-
More of the same from Joan
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Cut to Stephen Colbert playing a clip of Rev. Wright saying "God damn America" for the umpteenth time, and then asking, "Why won't that story die?"
Joan, if you really want to come across as fair and unbiased in this primary, you should pay more attention to which topics you cover in your editorials, the depth in which you cover these topics, and the timeliness of your coverage. It seems to me that, more often than not, you choose to cover topics that are pro-Hillary/anti-Obama in great detail within a very short timeframe. But when Hillary stumbles or Obama scores a few points, you mention it only in passing (if at all), and it usually takes you a while to get around to it. I'm just saying is all.
Also, could you please explain to us all why you think that it's more worthwhile to devote an entire column to discussing a former pastor of one of the candidates, rather than the words or actions of the candidates themselves? I'm still waiting for your response to Hillary's promise to completely obliterate Iran if they were to attack Israel, which seems to be a bit more relevant to the campaign than what her former pastor's view on Iran might be. My guess is that we'll probably have to sit through a hit piece on eight-year old Obama's radical ties before we get that.