Letters to the Editor
-
2008
I want to be excited about Obama ... but can't. He's rushing it, already being way too cautious with his statements, and surfing a wave that might not even exist. He runs and loses the nomination or the election and he's just another pol, a scant four years after reaching the Senate. That would be a shame. God forbid that doddering phony McCain wins the GOP nod (followed by you and the rest of the press kissing his "centrist" ass on a daily basis, ignoring his statements, record, flip-flops and pandering) and then the election, Obama could rid of the certain disaster in 2012. Right now, anyone but Hillary can beat anyone the GOP coughs up with the exception of the Maverick Saint. Romney? Please. John Edwards all the way, or Wesley Clark. Or Edwards-Clark.
-
Just a "quickie"
Hey, Walter, please fix the typo on the headline for this article -- it's "just DESSERTS", not "deserts". (Wish I wasn't so obsessive-compulsive about that kind of thing -- sorry, can't help it! I also hate to see people use "it's" when they mean "its"...)
Thanks!
-
Drain for McCain
From a political aspect, people should look past John McCain as being the Republican candidate for president in 2008. Because of McCain’s age and the abuse he endured during his Vietnam POW experience, he will not have the physical and mental vigor to make the 2008 presidential run (when he will be 72 years of age). He may play up his role as a contender in order to gather political favors, but that will be the extent of his candidacy.
For those who enjoy political speculation, as of now, the leading GOP candidate is someone who is, or can be, disassociated from the Bush clan. Most likely the front runners will be Reaganites, or other outmoded ‘Contract with America’ types. Currently the only option for the GOP is to go but back in time when looking for viable presidential applicants. This could change if the Democrats blunder and create a cause celebre.
At the moment the Democrats are in control because they can offer a new solution to a continuing problem (the Bush presidency). The Republicans can offer only recycled rhetoric.
-
No, it isn't
"Just deserts" is correct: it's what one justly deserves (not something nice like dessert).
-
NOTA
None of the above. Who wants any of them for anything. They all contributed to the debacle of Iraq save Obama who may excite the easily swayed which is about 80% with lofty, feel-good speeches, but what does he mean exactly? His experience and world view seems tied mostly to his experience as a black man to which about half of 13% of us can relate. The question is if he can shed that overlay and bridge the gap. The jury's out but if he did what's left exactly? The facility to make a great speech or write one and politic is totally different from the judgment, wisdom, life experiences, self-education, willingness to change and do it, and ability to empathize needed in a leader. Truman was a horrible speaker and a high school graduate, but a great president who used the N word but integrated the military with an executive order. Clinton was a great communicator but a poll-pandering mediocre president who now looks Lincolnesque compared to the joke in the WH. Obama is new and that's the attraction. He's not sullied by Washington ala Kerry and McCain whose ambition crowds out whatever merit they used to possess. If a candidate stood up and told the unvarnished truth ala Perot who would have gone far had he not communicated with Martians on the weekends, he or she would be elected by acclamation. Obama appeals because he's new and mostly NOTA but in a country which feigns racial indifference, its a farther bridge than catholicism in 1960. He's running for VP at best. He cant win and neither can Hillary. Where does that leave the Democrats except with retreads. The country pines for the non-pol who knows what needs to be done, says it, and will do it. Last one of those was about 1972, the end of the 60's era which Obama derides. But I seem to remember a hell of a lot more interest in the country by that generation than the present crop of money-grubbing, play-station addled, reality-show watching xs and ys. The dumbing down of America gave us politicians as unsatisfying as the culture from whence they come, ephemeral, vacuous, self-absorbed, naive, incurious beyond their own beings, and in the idiot in the WH's case, murderous.
-
First Annual Capitol Hill Roast
'Gitano' said it all and said it the best. Happy Holidays.
-
Holy Joe and the nutrootz
"For the anti-Lieberman netroots, it is hard to imagine a more powerful illustration of the be-careful-what-you-wish-for dictum about answered prayers."
Wonderful. So now, Walter, Lieberman's self-righteous priggishness becomes the fault of those who - quite improbably - helped unseat a sitting Senator in his party's primary? Seriously, are you kidding me? Are people no longer responsible for their actions if their feelings have been hurt?
Joe Lieberman is a 64-year-old man about to begin his fourth term in the United States Senate, and yet he somehow gets to revert to the emotional standing of a middle-schooler when his power is challenged. Pathetic.
-
Howard Dean
Where is Dean in your list? Did he not get a big boost from the election, just like Reid, Pelosi, etc?
-
NOTA
What about Howard Dean? He go crucified for having independent opinions.
-
"First Annual" is bad grammar
Something can only be annual after the first year. The correct wording is "inaugural." You're welcome.
-
The Author Responds
Even though writers do not create their own headlines, let me rise to make a courageous defense of the usage of "first annual" in both the head and in the text.
What "first annual" conveys is that we are inventing a Salon tradition that will be repeated next Thanksgiving. "Inaugural," which was the suggested alternative from "YourFriendlyPedant," does not make clear that these horn-of-plenty ratings will return at the same time next year. All "inaugural" implies is that they will be repeated at some time. Also, specifically in the headline, it could be confusing to readers to link "Inaugural" (associated with presidents) and "Capitol Hill" (which, of course, refers to Congress).
In response to the comment about the omission of Howard Dean, I wnat to point out that he was not the only public figure who ended up on the cutting-room floor. In an ideal world, I would have also written entries for Rahm Emanuel, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Tom Vilsack, Mike Huckaby, Sam Brownbeck, Trent Lott, Robert Gates and the entire Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
But, with the possible exception of the Salt-Lake-City-based choir, I will deal with all of them in future articles.