Letters to the Editor
Baloo.
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Democracy is Flawed
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm convinced that if Clinton was ahead in the race for the nomination the numbers would be flipped. More Americans would say we're ready for a woman than a black president. There is a lesson to be learned here for sociologists. People will tell you what they think you want to hear.
What I find more troubling about these polls are the fickleness of the American people. Why are attack ads so effective? Why did the US elect GW Bush when his opponent was clearly far more intelligent, far more capable...twice? These are questions that still trouble me. Part of the answer is that more and more people are getting involved in our democracy but in a dogmatic, uninformed and capricious way.
I know what the Democrats were thinking when they invented superdelegates. It's the same thing the founding fathers were thinking when they invented the electoral college. They wanted to protect the people from themselves, a kind of check on democracy.
I know it's in fashion these days to hype the wisdom and good instincts of the American people. Well, I think that's all a bunch of crap. We have a long way to go before we reach our own idea of who/what we are as Americans. We are only just barely civilized.
"What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment."
-
My two cents: Can't we all just get along?
[Read the article: Barack Obama in suspended animation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary has been laying off Obama in the past couple of weeks. Or, maybe it just seems that way to me because I've gotten bored with the race and not following it as closely.
In any case, it has given me time to realize that I have a lot of affection for Hillary. She's a tough women who doesn't mind getting a little dirty and she does it with good humor. Bill totally does not deserve her. He's the real jackass! He made a decent president though, light years smarter than Bush.
And the experience argument--I totally get it. Clinton saw first hand what goes on in the White House. That is invaluable for preparing one to take the reigns for themselves, like an apprenticeship.
Nevertheless, I still think Obama is the better choice between the two.
Take for example Mark Penn. First of all, why does Clinton have a pollster running her campaign? What does that say about how she'll run the oval office?
Second, she's ditched him without a second thought. This is certainly part of a larger pattern exhibited by her campaign and her husband's administration: Anyone stands in the way of political expediency--throw them overboard. Perfect example: Jocelyn Elders, thrown overboard by slick Willy for advocating masturbation to young people as an alternative to sex. (BTW, I advocate masturbation too, especially to all the anti-Obama posters here.)
Clinton is just typical in too many ways. She is a typical politician and her administration will be a typical administration. She will continue to hedge, calculate, and consult polls and pollsters instead of her own moral compass.
Obama, on the other, hand has a moral compass and a very good one at that. I think it's safe to assume that his administration will be refreshingly atypical. Moreover, he'll surround himself not with sycophants, pollsters, and political expedients but with a real brain trust, the best and the brightest. (I can't wait to see who.)
Sure, he'll spend the first year getting his bearings but who won't? Clinton has been running for the presidency for over a year now and she still doesn't have her bearings!
Give the guy a chance. He's a good guy, a smart guy, and he'll make a great president.
The past is always a good predictor of the future. Bush failed at just about everything he did in his life before he became president and then he failed at being a president. Obama has succeeded in everything he's put his mind to in his life and he will be a successful president too.
-
Ecce Homo
[Read the article: Cashing in on the Clinton campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I support Obama but I would never dream of donating money to his campaign. I will donate my time, I will recruit, I will blog and post but I will not pay cash. That, I believe, should be left to the federal government and the federal government alone.
People are far better advised to donate their money to those who 'have to skip meals' and 'can't afford their medication,' i.e. to the poor, rather than lining the pockets of muckers like Penn.
There is entirely way too much money in these campaigns. It is obscene.
With less money there would be less glitz, less spin, less cover and gloss and maybe then we could see more clearly who the people running actually are. We could see what their made of rather than how much talent they can hire or how well campaigns can calculate, manage and spin.
Muckers like Penn only serve to conceal the real person hiding behind the candidacy. They are hired guns defending a fort and the media, at best, become the insurgents trying to storm the fort.
So, all this money promotes hype and media frenzy which turns our electoral process into a sideshow and a food fight rather than an election in support of a Democracy.
Well, what if there were no forts at all? What if it was mano a mano? Or, better yet, what if we could get rid of the fight analogies and act like regular people having a conversation about political ideas? That would be ideal.