Letters to the Editor
-
bitter is angry is fed up is tired is pointless
Degeneration into name calling seems to part of the human condition, apparently, whosever side you appear to be on.
Neither clinon or obama are perfect. but the issues that matter to all of us: health care, providing for our families, security and the freedom to worship -- or not worship - as we please, and say what we want to say, seems to actually matter to both these candidates, whether one tells a whopper about sniper fire, or the other chooses to vote present on politically touchy issues. God, guns and attitude aside, what i'd truly like to see is some unity -- not because of them or their surrogates -- but for our own sakes.
i prefer hillary, but i will vote for obama. i'd like someone sane on the other side to vow to do the same.
-
These Letters Get Depressing
After reading the first pages worth of letters commenting on this article, I'm throughly depressed. It only took five posting to degenerate into a Hillbots vs. Obamabots diatribe, except for "A Voice of Reason's" classless, obviously elitist, and insulting attempt at, what I'm hoping was supposed to be, humor.
I'm not too surprised however, I'm sure most of Salon's readers are as uncomfortable talking about the legitimate complaints of the blue-collar working, and middle class as the politicians, and corporate leaders are. They are no doubt hoping that a few buzz words about hope, and improved opportunity will quite them down for a while. It has always worked before.
This is emblematic of what passes for political discussion in this country. Once again Obama has pointed out one of the unfortunate realities of our country, albeit clumsily, and once again the pundits and political apologists presume to speak to our sense of outrage.
As a blue-collar worker in rural Vermont, I can tell you I'm tired of being spoken down to in soothing platitudes, and lectured about why I'm supposed to be out raged by the likes of George Will, David Broder, and a mind numbing selection of like wise overpaid blow hards, from both side of the supposed political divide.
I think we prefer the truth. Even if it is poorly worded, and has a bitter after taste. After all, if we don't acknowledge the truths, how can we solve any of the problems this country faces?
-
@ cathammer
Do you care to actually make a comment or sit behind the bushes tossing stones and giggling?
State your opinion and earn some respect, or twist mine to fit your fantasy it's all the same to me.
I've read your other letters, so I see the quality of your work and I'm not impressed.
-
@ Carters12
From this point forward I'll try to devote my life to impressing you!
I think it's more of a snicker than a giggle.
Oops, that didn't last as long as I thought it might.
-
one perspective
There's been much talk about how Obama is going over in rural areas. Coming from the state that has the most rural areas in the nation -- our rural communities cannot be reached by road -- I thought I should give this perspective.
Obama is really big in Alaska, particularly in the Bush (that's Alaskan for "rural"). It's not a liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican thing so much as a new-versus-old thing. And yes, the state will probably go for McCain in November, due to its Republican tendencies and respect for military service, but with the exception of wingnuts who are convinced he's a "Moooslem" terrorist, Obama is at least grudgingly liked, even by Rs who won't be voting for him. Why?
-- He represents generational change. That's something people here dearly want. It's part of the reason a relatively inexperienced Sarah Palin dispatched Frank Murkowski in 2006, and part of the reason why Don Young and even "Uncle Ted" Stevens are in trouble now.
-- He's represents a break with the past, something Alaskans are desperately craving as we plough through the revelations about a big corruption scandal that has entangled many powerful people, including some in office a long time (ahem, Don, Ted and others, I'm talking about you).
-- Alaskans have become very leery of dynasties, for good reason (Ted Stevens, Ben Stevens -- need I say more?)
-- He's not the typical poll- and focus-group tested politician. That may mean some gaffes occasionally (though personally I don't see the "bitter" comment as inaccurate or a gaffe), but that's better than being overly packaged. He's a plain, albeit eloquent, speaker, and doesn't talk down to his listeners (see Sarah Palin reference), which voters find refreshing.
-- Alaskans are tired of political soap operas, be they at the borough and city assembly levels, the state "Corrupt Bastards" level or the national level. The Clintons did a lot of good things in the past, but they also put us through the wringer over some ridiculous stuff. The Hillary-hate/Clinton-hate thing may be irrational, but it's real, and drama-weary Alaskans want to avoid having the country gripped by it yet again.
-- Alaskans don't necessarily put a lot of stock in traditional political "experience" anymore. In some ways, too much "experience" is seen as making a politician stale, out of touch and too compromised with special interests, particularly oil interests. Voters here have rejected a lot of political veterans lately in favor of young newcomers.
-- He's shown an ability to move between cultures, or at least understand the nuances of different cultures, something hugely important to our Native people, who comprise a significant percentage of the population. Spending part of his life overseas is seen as a huge plus here, as is having relatives of various ethnicities and nationalities.
-- As someone who grew up in Hawaii, he understands what it's like to be not part of the contiguous 48 states. Can't tell you how refreshing that is to Alaskans!
I'm not saying this is the only way to view the Obama-Clinton contest, or that it is The Correct Way. It's just what's going on around here.
-
Thank you 2dumb2think for the all important context
I want to thank 2dumb2think for posting Obama's entire response. In context, I think it is very hard to argue that Obama is being insulting or elitist. I actually find it amazing, given that the whole answer is on this thread, that there are still people arguing these points. You have the right to argue, certainly, but I have to confess I'm not even close to seeing your point. I think his argument is very respectful and honest, he's saying Pennsylvanians in depressed areas have an absolute right to be dubious of economic reforms, because they've been promised shiny futures every election cycle and yet the evidence of their eyes shows no improvement. I think he's absolutely right people would vote their pocketbooks more if they thought it would do them any good. There's a credibility gap that the politicians have when they talk about these issues to people who have been promised relief for a while and have yet to see it. The way he phrases it, though, it's his problem, not theirs. He has to convince them that he's different, that he's sincere about changing their economic existence in a meaningful way. That his promises aren't going to disappear in a puff of smoke the day after election day. Correct me I'm wrong, but that's what I see as his point, and I completely fail to see the elitism in it.
Mostly, I think just the use of the word "cling" was unfortunate, due mostly to the connotations of weakness associated with it, which I think led people to feel he was mocking them. This connotational baggage only becomes stronger when you strip away all the context, of course. Change "cling" to "emphasize" (as I guess he probably would have if this were a scripted remark from a speech) and I think the whole thing becomes a much harder sell. Oh well, I guess that'll teach him to try to give a detailed, nuanced answer to a difficult question on the fly.