Letters to the Editor
Baloo.
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Politics as usual vs. rhetoric and inspiration
[Read the article: The battle for Nevada]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whatever you think of Reagan's politics, it is an undeniable fact that he was a charismatic and inspiring leader, not just for Americans, but to people around the world. As many times as the Republican candidates mouth his name, none of them can hold a candle to him in this regard. It was through the force of personality that Kennedy helped to put a man on the moon and Reagan helped to hasten the dissolution of the Soviet Union, through their ability to inspire, to set an agenda a majority can believe in, to motivate people and move a nation toward greater possibilities. It was the same talent and ability that gave Martin Luther King, Jr. his power and inspired a nation to make difficult changes. As much as rhetoric is denigrated, that is its undeniable power. It can bring people together and move people in pursuit of the good, the true, the just cause. That is, above all, what any president ought to be able to do. A good politician must be, therefore, a powerful rhetorician, an inspirational speaker and a person with the integrity to back his words. Barack Obama is that person and he could do for Democrats what Reagan did for the Republican party.
On the other hand, a politican who is uninspirational and divisive can at best only be a good manager, a good bureaucrat. I have little doubt Hillary Clinton would make a good bureaucrat. But what she can't do is exactly what we need done right now, after 8 years of Bush.
-
Testy schmesty.
[Read the article: Is Obama getting "testy"?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Testy? He seems jovial, a bit distracted by all the noise, and willing to talk about the issue. Where the hell do these people get testy? Oh, right! That's what Ms. Clinton is calling it, and the media is taking her lead.
If I were in his place, I'd be hoppin' mad and I'd tear a hole into Hillary Clinton that all the crying in the world couldn't fix.
-
Their conflict?
[Read the article: McCain: Clinton would "surrender" in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton said, "there is no military solution, and our young men and women should not remain as the referees of their conflict."
Their conflict? If I remember correctly, they didn't have a conflict until we stormed in there, took out their government, took out their army, flooded the country with anti-American zealots looking to spill blood and now it's "their conflict."
McCain is right! Clinton is telling you what she thinks you want to here to get your vote. Screw her!
-
You broke it, you own it!
[Read the article: McCain: Clinton would "surrender" in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me say it again:
Ya, lets go into a country where a brutal dictator has established a tenuous peace over 3 major ethnic groups who would rather die than live with each other, take him and his whole government out, take out the Army, let all their musuems get looted and decimated, bomb the country to smithereens, kill about a half million of their civilians and then when the going gets tough and we lose a few of our guys, pull out and call it "their conflict." Ya, that will go over really well in the Islamic world. They'll be real happy to here we've given them ownership of their country finally. Ya, no, they won't come here. There's a whole freakin ocean they'd have to cross.
There's nothing in it for us, so fuck the darkees. Let them kill each other off til the last man standing. That's real American values at work for you!
-
The media is to blame, mostly!
[Read the article: Obama's historic run heads south]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The media has created the racial/gender issue. I don't support Clinton but I don't for a minute believe there was anything racial about any of Bill Clinton's remarks. He made a good point on NPR today. He said we went through the past 40 years or so fighting for civil rights not so we can avoid race and racial issues all together but so people can be free, can speak freely, about whatever the heck is on their minds without fear of being called a racist.
It's not Obama who is complaining either. His grievance has to do with how the Clintons have distorted his record. It has nothing to do with race or gender or who deserves more pity and what not.
It's the media that fans the flames of race and gender because framing the story around black and white issues everyone can understand makes for good headlines. Headlines people will buy and read. Us against them, man vs. nature, good vs. evil, etc. The problem is that there is no longer any clear line between entertainment and news. News agencies have to be entertaining if they want to survive.
That is not to say that racism and sexism are not forces at work in our lives. It is simply to say that the media exploits it for profit, no longer out any desire to report what is the case, but just to distract and entertain you before they go on to tell you what Britney Spears is doing today or some such crap.
-
The reason latino and poor white Democrats will not vote for Obama...
[Read the article: Will whites vote for Barack Obama? ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...is because they live in the same low-income neighborhoods where poor black people live. In these crime riddled neighborhoods every group is prejudiced toward every other group. They are especially prejudiced toward the black folk, because, rightly or wrongly, they are seen as the worse perpetrators of crime and nothing else.
A similar phenomenon occurs in the global neighborhood. Many Westerners are prejudiced against Muslims, especially after 9/11, because they are seen as terrorists and nothing else.
Obama lost the Latino vote, because hardworking Latinos who don't have the time or opportunity to educate themselves will instinctively vote against a black man. That is what their experience teaches them and that is all they have to go on.