Letters to the Editor
-
Is this just like American Idol?
Some well rehearsed Presidential pretenders duel it out in an amateur talent show. Will it play in Los Angeles? I guess it will if the media throws their support to the winner.
-
Ready for the roller coaster?
If democracy is defined as a meaningful engagement in the decisions that affect our lives, this isn't it.
You just know that the outcome has nothing to do with how reasonable, intelligent, nor compassionate the winner is. Fixing the math might help, (i.e. each human vote counting equally) but the biggest problem is ignorance bred by media consolidation.
Thanks for the story, anyway... it's a nice thought.
-
Windsurfing! What an idiot!
You guys made a big deal of it, Walter ... and as usual, now say it was "his fault" that someone took a picture of such a supposedly unmanly or effete pastime. Not like clearin' brush down at the vinyl-sidin' "ranch." Much like the Edwards haircuit "story," which no sentient voter not on a press bus gives a shit about. But whatever. Cackles, haircuts, cleavage, voices ... if you say it matters, then it must.
-
Shapiro on "electability"
Good piece as always when the author takes up a theme so a word of thanks to WS for his consistently informative writing in these days---and for a becoming restraint. I'm in Berlin for a time and WS will be glad to know that some of the more intelligent German academics and journalists look at Salon and appreciate his work So as the campaign moves into the frenzies of the next year, I look forward to more of the same Norman Birnbaum
-
Ohmigod! Windsurfing is for pussies...
I wonder how many of the media gasbags have ever tried to windsurf.
Windsurfing is a heckuva lot more challenging and demanding than clearing mesquite.
The media "chainsaw massacre" of Kerry for windsurfing -- and we ended up with The Shrub doing manly things.
Oh, my head aches. I need to take a Fuckitall!
-
And I think you've short-changed, Dodd...
...especially on the "why-I-want-to-be-president" question, considering the great pains he has taken to talking about how important it is to restore the Constitution, and that it would be the first priority of his administration.
As for the "whatever" reason that he has not been able to break through the message cloud... mightn't that be due to the press's penchant for covering horse races over substance? It would certainly explain why the most substantial candidates are in the second tier, rather than the first.
Beltway pundit: "Ooohhh... substance!?! That's just tooo hard. Let someone else do it."
-
Gender and race could derail a Democratic victory!
I hope Iowa will pick a candidate who doesn't have to face an uphill battle over gender and race.
Edwards is very appealing and his campaign is very progressive. Plus, I think Democrats would figure out that they have to give to the DNC to get Edwards elected. He is very electable.
-
It's going to be Hillary, so get used to it
And it's going to be Giuliani on the other ticket.
And in the end, Hillary is going to kick Giuliani's ass like he was a little girl in a cage fight with a gorilla.
And Hillary Clinton is going to be president. And she is going to conduct business as usual, which is what Corporate America wants.
Got it?
Good.
Now shut your hole and know your role!
-
Electability
Frankly, as a Democrat I don't see any of our current crop of candidates as that is as electable as Senator Kerry was in 2004. I may just sit back and watch what unfolds from the sidelines. As for your comments about Senator Kerry, it is easy to second guess his campaign now that the numbers are in (questionable as they are), but he ran a good race and came closer that any of the current candidates would to winning that 2004 election. I saw Mr. Kerry as elecable then and I would still see him in the same way. It wasn't that ridiculous comment in this article about his choice of sports activities that lost that election for him, or the once to often repeated misinformed notion that Senator Kerry did not try and fight of the lies and smears from the Swift Boat Veterans. It was a media that was to preoccupied with coddling President Bush and finding amusement in replaying over and over again lies and smears about Senator Kerry that had been challenged and proven to be wrong.
This upcoming election, no matter how you try to spin it in no way comes close to 2004. We had some damn good, well qualified candidates then and Senator Kerry was the best. The media pushed front runners today offer very little to the voters and I would challenge any of them to run in a race close to the one Mr. Kerry had to run in last time. None of them would be left standing.
-
Kucinich or Gravel are the most electable Democrats
It's ironic that you don't bother to list the two Democrats with the best chance of beating a Republican challenger.
Yes, I know this is counter to what the media keeps spinning, but in this case the conventional wisdom is wrong.
Here's the deal: Kucinich and Gravel are the only candidates that are not corporately owned. This means they don't have money to buy lots of TV ads to win the Democratic nomination, but they do have integrity that people across the political spectrum would vote for in November.
I'm not as versed in Gravel's positions on issues, but Kucinich has a clear, well thought-out position on every conceivable issue. He's not 'Republican-light'. His positions are clearly distinguishable from the Republican position. This cannot be said of the so-called front-runners.
Wake up, people: This is why Kerry was such a poor choice..his position on the war was indistinguishable from Bush.
Finally, Kucinich's positions on the top three issues are the mainstream, popular position:
1. The War. He lead the charge against the Iraq war, so no apologies to make and no inconsistancies. Out of Iraq now, with an International peace and reconciliation plan for after we leave (HR1234. Read it)
2. Not-For-Profit health care for all. The other candidates would spend more money to subsidize the insurance industry, while Kucinich would re-direct the money we are already spending on paper work and profit back into paying doctors and nurses.
3. Jobs/Trade: Only Kucinich would cancel NAFTA and the WTO and base trade on workers rights, human rights, and the environment.
Kucinich beat a Republican for State Senate when everyone said he couldn't. Then, in 1996, he beat a Republican for Congress.
People like a candidate who is consistent, principled and DEMANDS EVIDENCE OF WMDs BEFORE VOTING FOR WAR.
The primary is no time to compromise. Even if you vote for Kucinich (because he best represents what you want) and he doesn't secure the nomination, the fact that so many people voted for him can only help by pushing whoever IS the nominee to be a better, more electable candidate.