Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 21 Editor's Choice: 2
-
I expect better than this
[Read the article: Some free advice for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joe writes:
So far, as the trial of his former patron Antoin Rezko unfolds, nobody has even suggested that Obama did anything illegal or unethical to advance his relationship with the indicted Chicago developer. Yet many questions are still unanswered about that relationship, which included well over a hundred thousand dollars in political contributions and simultaneous real estate purchases that concluded three years ago with the Obama family owning a South Side mansion (and the Rezko family owning an adjacent lot that enlarged their celebrated neighbor's yard space).
I'm somewhat surprised by the duplicity in this pair of sentences. And then there's the fact that the first sentence is clearly false - people other than just Joe Conason are suggesting that Obama has some wrongdoing here to account for. Indeed, if they weren't, Conason wouldn't be writing an article telling Obama to respond to them.
If Conason has something specific, not just a few innuendo-ridden references to ways in which Rezko might have helped Obama, perhaps he should help the democratic process along a little and make them, and I mean make specific allegations that, if true, clearly show wrongdoing on the part of Barack Obama. Because from where I look, the very first paragraph of this article looks like an attempt to push Whitewaterish smears like those that the Clintons had to suffer for most of Bill's presidency.
Unless those specific allegations are made, rather than the "suggestions" that Conason is at once claiming nobody is making, and repeating himself, what, exactly, is Obama supposed to be answering?
-
Caveats and contradictions
[Read the article: Misadventures in logical reasoning -- and lessons learned from the Spitzer scandal]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm disappointed at this article as I was Glenn's original protest implying nobody cares that Spitzer was hiring prostitutes. The caveats at the end struck me as ultimately contradictory.
Prostitution is against the law. That does actually factor into the "Is using a prostitution service a moral wrong" equation, because it does impact the type of people who'd work in that industry and the risks that they suffer. This is not a case where Spitzer was hopping on a 747 every few weeks and spending some time in a well regulated and completely legal Amsterdam brothel.
Glenn is also suggesting that this is an extraordinarily intrusive investigation that would never be leveled at someone who isn't Spitzer. The details of why Spitzer has been investigated have been extraordinarily public, and boil down to apparent evidence that Spitzer was being bribed or blackmailed, and an investigation that subsequently revealed an entirely different picture involving clear violations of Federal anti-trafficking laws. Does Spitzer deserve to go to prison over this? Well, Greenwald is protesting when the charges haven't even been filed. All that's happened so far is that the investigation's findings have been made public.
The bottom line is that a great many people have very legitimate concerns about prostitution; that clients of prostitutes do enable that industry; that Spitzer is one of those clients; that Spitzer himself never had a problem with shutting down prostitution rings (and the argument I've heard from Spitzer apologists that as a client he's somehow less deserving of punishment is astonishing), and that he's been caught.
It's a sad end to someone who was, at one point, considered the next Teddy Roosevelt, but one could argue the supreme arrogance needed to both bust up prostitution rings, and then go on to enable them and exploit them in the belief you'll not get caught means we've dodged a bullet by taking Spitzer out of the Presidential candidate pool. Arrogance, a disrespect for his own family, a willingness to flout the law for short term pleasure, and a cavalier attitude towards funding crime rings: I'm glad we found out now.
-
The 3am skit was supposed to be pro-Clinton?
[Read the article: Michaels denies "SNL" is pro-Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm surprised to hear some Salon readers claiming the 3am ad spoof was supposed to be pro-Clinton. It struck me as lampooning Clinton's 3am ad, both suggesting Clinton thought too highly of her own skills and that she was prepared to exaggerate to a ridiculous degree in her offense against Obama.
Was I the only one who watched it as that? Because, to be honest, the alternative explanation some here are posting - that it was supposed to be taken at face value - makes no sense. Why would you spoof an ad by agreeing with it and its premise?
-
Why Clinton winning is almost impossible
[Read the article: Politico: "Clinton has virtually no chance of winning"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some people here are looking at the vote counts and assuming that because they appear, on the surface, to be close that this means Clinton is still very much in the game.
CNN is currently reporting Obama leading 1,622 to 1,485. CBS says the lead is 1,616 to 1,485. On the face of it, those appear to be similar, with Obama "only" having 9% more votes than Clinton.
Now, here's why that analysis is misleading. What matters is not how many votes they have, but how many more are needed for each candidate to win. 2025 votes clinches the nomination. The "required votes" are:
CNN: Obama needs 403, Clinton 540
CBS: Obama needs 409, Clinton 540
Now you possibly see the magnitude of the problem Clinton faces. She has to maintain delegate wins of 33% (by count) or 13% (by percentage lead) more than Obama for the remainder of the contest. In one area, superdelegates, almost all (all but one of the last ten) recent wins have been by Obama, and 337 of those votes are still in play, assuming no defections. While she appears likely to do well in one or two contests coming up, the probability she's going to sweep them with enough votes to counter the likely Obama wins elsewhere in order to maintain an average 57% of the vote is improbable to say the least.
It's close enough for Clinton to feel like she has a chance, but it's not close enough for it to be realistic, as in more probable than not, that she'll win. It's considerably more probably she'll lose.
The question is, how long is it going to take for her to realize this, and how much damage will she cause in the mean time?