Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:
Published Letters: 293
Editor's Choice: 14
When I think of all the things that McCain has been given a free pass on and how loathe the media have been to recognize that the "maverick" image they created for him ceased to reflect reality some time ago, and combine that with the way they hyped the controversy over Rev. Wright to such an insane degree, the complaints by Republicans that the media is in the tank for Obama strike me as nothing short of ludicrous.
Obviously, the Republicans are afraid of the American people seeing how eagerly the rest of the world is hoping for us to turn away from the path we've been following for almost eight years and start acting as a reasonable member of the international community again, rather than a bully. The Republicans themselves have been making a huge issue of Obama's relative lack of experience in foreign affairs. Therefore this trip, which should provide valuable insight into how Obama would handle himself on the international stage becomes, in fact, a major story, deserving of the coverage that is planned. And the Republicans have no right to complain about it.
Well, I'm glad to see that Stephanie appreciated Pierce Brosnan's performance to some degree...if not his singing. He is one of the major reasons I've been wanting to see this movie for some time. (Streep, the chance to see them together, and the music of ABBA, which I find infectious, are the others.) I've seen a number of clips from the movie as it's been promoted on various programs, and though I'm well aware that short clips can give a very misleading impression of the overall tone and effect of a movie, I have to say that I found my foot tapping and I was left with quite a positive feeling. I plan to see the movie this weekend, and I rather suspect I will enjoy it a good deal...no matter what Stephanie says.
I really do not understand these disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton. Uncomfortable with the idea of a President Obama? How in heaven's name can they not be far more uncomfortable with the idea of a President McCain? His record on the issues that supposedly matter to them is terrible. Is it possible that they don't really care about those issues at all...or at least not enough to overcome theirsense of offense at the fact that Hillary actually lost?
It's aggravating to see McCain constantly accusing Obama of minimizing the "success" of the surge while he himself is guilty of minimizing or denying every factor that argues against our continued involvement in Iraq.
What's even more aggravating is to see the media constantly minimizing McCain's numerous gaffes and misstatements. They created the image of him as being strong on foreign policy and now they can't give it up, even while evidence to the contrary piles up.
Next week the free market and the banking industry. Yeah, that would be good. And then, the week after, I'd love to see something about the free market and the health care industry, dealing with how insurers and health care providers attempt to maximize their bottom line, not by performing their central function more efficiently, but by AVOIDING performing it at all.
And then there's the ad in which McCain basically accuses Obama personally of being responsible for high oil prices because he doesn't support expanded offshore drilling. I think that's one of the most fundamentally dishonest political ads I've ever had the misfortune to be subjected to. It's been playing quite a bit on the stations in my area, and I'm just wondering what kind of effect it's having.
It's been disturbing to see the increasingly peevish tone that the McCain campaign has been adopting of late. If he's acting this way now what will it be like in October? Not a pretty picture.
It strikes me that this whole argument by some that Obama is too "cocky" or presumptuous is largely a matter of people perceiving what they expect, or even hope to see. If you start out basically on his side you're going to see Obama's conduct as showing confidence, a positive trait in a leader, and demonstrating, as so many have said he has needed to do, his capacity to handle himself on the worrld stage. On the other hand, if you start out inclined against him it would be easy to perceive arrogance and say that he's getting ahead of himself. So is this whole argument really changing anyone's mind, or only confirming their existing leanings?