Letters to the Editor
-
The harder they try to bring him down....
ABC’s cheesy questions made Obama’s overarching point for him; the political and media elite are content to evade the real concerns of a skeptical majority and they seek to discourage the electorate by increasing the level of cynicism. But after “bittergate” didn’t dent his support it is becoming obvious that the harder the elites try to drag him into the gutter the more people understand that he represents the elevation of our political discourse.
-
The big loser
The biggest losers in this debate were Stephanopolis, Gibson and ABC "News." They embarrassed themselves with a petty, mean spirited, biased and shameful performance.
This was an execrable example of gotcha journalism at its lowest and most vile and unproductive. Jon Stewart's admonition to "Crossfire" would do well here. "Stop. You're hurting America. Just stop!"
-
A better title might be ABC fails the US Electorate
Or some variation on that -- hell lets have a competition to describe what a lazy, stupid job ABC did.
Given a chance at a "vox pop" question what does ABC do, up with the flag pin and sniper questions. Is this the most important issue to the people of Pennsylvania? Bullshit! It was a set of good soundbites, selected for entertainment value.
The whole debate was a dud, but don't blame the candidates, blame the so-called journalists.
-
Wow
I disagree. I learned about Clinton's ideas about foreign policy in the middle east (the umbrella), which I had never heard before, and which is extremely important. I also learned that the only ex-President Obama wants as an advisor is the first George Bush! That shocked me to no end, that he seems to believe the man was wise in foreign policy and about the Gulf War we Democrats took to the streets to protest against.
I also learned that Obama believes what he said about Pennsylvanians (as he repeated exactly what he was quoted as first saying), and about Rev. Wright (which he also repeated -- that Rev. Wright said some bad stuff, but overall, he's a great guy and Obama's proud of him for his church work). I also learned that Obama doesn't understand why any of these things would upset reasonable people, and that, in his mind, being "friendly" with Ayers seems okay, since Obama was only 8 when Ayers bombed the Pentagon.
Dear God. And this is devoid of substance to you???
-
Clinton is half right
I think HRC is half right: Obama would face non-stop sleeze in a general. Maybe not from McCain directly, but the entire Freak Show, from Malkin to Limbaugh to Savage to Hewitt to the WSJ editorial page, will be out in force for months and months.
Where I disagree is how to fight them. If eight years of Rove politics and Bush facism haven't knocked sense into enough voters to form a majority over the fact that questions about Obama's lapel pin should be laughed out of the building, then the country will get exactly what it deserves. People that stupid should not be in control of so much wealth and military power.
-
I fart in the general direction of this review
You know, these debates should be covered with a style by a non-political writer to give it some objectivity and originality. I vote that the next debate be covered by Heather Havrilesky.
-
No fizzle for Obama
I thought the level of discourse aimed at by the moderators was perfect for Sen. Clinton; she gets to play a game she knows all the rules to.
Sen. Obama refused to play. He openly, repeatedly, eloquently (mostly) addressed all the gotcha questions directly, and briefly and then called the questioners on playing a tired game that doesn't serve the nation. He even went to bat for Hillary at one point!
Of course there were no fireworks. He defused every bomb thrown at him as he has for months. He'll have no problem with the wingnuts!
-
On the tax question, I wish the candidates had been able to give a better, but more complex answer
Like, I promise the working and middle class will be better off as a result of my tax policy. Because the real issue is that the middle and working class are worse off, even when the Republicans give them a tax break, and I means that objectively.
For example, interest rates, on mortgages, credit cards and for corporate investment. A key factor impacting and forcing up interest is the size of the deficits the Republicans have created with their tax cuts -- borrowed money is a market commodity, Bush has made the biggest buyer for that commodity the Federal Government, hence real interest rates must go up.
The sliding dollar is driven heavily by the size of the US deficit, put simply, foreigners believe (because some Republicans have been suggesting this as far back as the Reagan administration) that in the end the US will have to monetize the debt, i.e., let the printing presses run and devalue the dollar. Moreover (see the point above), if the US does not put up interest rates to reflect the size of the debt, the dollar must fall. The falling dollar is a major driver of the soaring oil price, and this is taking money out of peoples' pockets faster than the tax man.
Grover Norquists treasonous tax cut program (treasonous because it seeks to destroy the US government in a time of "war" according to the Republicans who have signed on) has as its objective "starving the beast" so as to kill off all the programs that benefit the middle and working class, everything from tuition assistance to medicare. Again this makes the middle and working class worse off.
The education position of the US is sliding -- rapidly. It no longer has a well educated workforce by comparison to its competitors. More than half of the students in hard science and engineering programs in US colleges are not US nationals, the US performance in the OECD PISA studies of 15 year old educational achievement sucks (except for the literacy test, where the US adminstrators were so illiterate the results had to be thrown away), which means they are not qualified to do these subjects in college. The most recent study I saw of the US workforce shows that it is THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD where 50-64 year old workers are better educated than 20-35 year olds (that difference was public education spending in the 60s and 70s especially to support college science and engineering programs.) If Americans are less educated than dozens of countries how can they expect to be well off? What use is there in cutting taxes, to cut education spending? All that will mean is working class and middle class parents struggling to pay for priovate school, or their kids losing out.
I could continue listing points like this, but the "bottom line" is that taxes cannot be seen in isolation, they are part of the deficit situation, and a high deficit costs middle and working class Americans. The question is, will Obama and Hillary enact policies that will make them better off.