Letters to the Editor
-
I'm with you on this, Kitt
I think people "vote for the candidate they believe in" regardless of polls. Sure, polls are a contributing factor into the ferreting out process that people use, but all in all, it's just one factor of many.
It's why it makes more sense in many ways to support H. Dean's 50-state strategy (which would more accurately be called a "500,000-precinct - or whatever the number is - strategy, in which the goal is to get more Dems elected to municipal, county, and state offices, and to sign up more voters precinct-by-precinct. When more people vote, the nation gets better results. Another strategy which may be more useful (not to mention achievable) than trying to stuff the "earnest news" toothpaste back into the major news outlets tube, is to vigorously oppose the Republican party's efforts to suppress voter turnout and to disenfranchise voters via picture ID schemes, etc. Simultaneously, the Democratic party should return to its past emphasis on GOTV efforts.
-
Hillary's true nature..
Clearly becuase of her white female privledge status she knew she could slam MLK with immunity partly becuase Obama is afraid to fire back and defend his Black credentials he has handcuffed himself but of course I have not...
Hillary's revisionist history to step on MLK to was a move to remind white voters that as a white person she could do that was quite revealing on a number of fronts...
Hillary knew as the spouse of a southern male collateral attacks on MLK affirms white southerns who still resent taking it on the chin because of King's legacy... Hillary made a move like her hubby( as governor) when he refused to commute a black mentally ill male from the death penalty in Arkansas to prove to southern whites he was still a 'law and order" white candidate..
White female privledge is really a sore subject when you discuss it with Black woman inparticular those young credentialed Black females in the job market..
Hillary's selfishness as no boundaries..
-
-- Aycharaych
"But that is bullying, as I have been informed here when I attempted to get my questions answered.
I realize that I'm not a reporter and that the posters here are not candidates, but it is impossible to have a debate based on facts and reason if those you are debating with refuse to answer your questions.
Any reporter who did as you suggest in your post would immediately be ostracized by both their fellow "reporters" and by the candidates and their campaigns in the current media climate."
It's not bullying when the reporter, after failing to receive an answer to the actual question he asked, is courteous and reports the dodge as what it was, a dodge. What's lacking now is the reporting of the dodge.
Any reporter who is more worried about being ostracized than reporting the truth deserves to be ostracized.
In your case, people were refusing to give any answer at all or when they did answer with what apparently you weren't looking for in an answer, (they) were ignored in return or, even worse, repeatedly told that they had not attempted to answer. In anycase, candidates have an obligation to answer legitimate questions. Folks on message boards don't and it does no good to whine about not getting an answer back to what may appear as a loaded question. No?
I predict that you will not answer that question.
-
omooex:
For most of the strands of this polling issue I guess we just don't agree with one another, at least not at this time. One bit we probably do agree on is that political polling can be and is overused, even abused and can and does, at times, have a detrimental effect on the outcome of vote tallies.
-
It's about time somebody noticed just how awful the coverage has been
Since the start of the political race a year ago, I have gotten angrier & angrier at the shallow, gossipy coverage the TV talking heads have given to this race.
A year into the campaign, and I challenge anybody to find even an hour's worth of analysis from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. (nobody expects news from FOX)about the political positions, histories, voting records, government performance of any of the candidates. On top of which, they decided at the start that there were only 3 viable Dem. candidates - so people like Biden, Dodd & Richardson never got a chance to make a case for their own candidacies. What is amazing is that they refuse to acknowledge that they are distorting the process, that when they focus on only 3 candidates, viewers will focus on only 3 candidates.
Every time Wolf Blitzer says "the best" or "most trusted name" in the business - a mantra repeated so endlessly it's only purpose must be to convince this pinshead that he is actually a journalist - I get sick.
But Chris Matthews is in a class by himself. He is a vicious, deeply misogynistic, seriously deranged person (his hatred of Clinton can only be described as psychotic) who doesn't even do what little his role calls for well. Watch an interview: he never listens to the person he is talking to. He just shouts out one question or statement after the other. You can see him preparing the next salvo before the interviewee has gotten out a single sentence. This, supposedly, proves that he is is tough.
Worse, as far as I can tell, none of these media "stars" - including, unfortunately, Couric, Gibson & Williams - has any insight into how they have distorted the process. They actually believe they are journalists. Criticize them and the response is a knee-jerk "we must do something right because we get criticism from all sides". It never occurs to them that some of the criticism may be justified, and some may be aimed at them precisely to preserve this cover.
-
Thrasher
Not having paid much attention to H. Clinton's rhetoric lately (because I feel that I know her pretty well already!), I missed her dissing of MLK. Can you tell me what happened?
-
@Mike
Of course, even in a Laplacian Universe it would require an infinite number of digits to specify the EXACT position of even a single particle, let alone all of them. The uncertaintly principle actually simplifies things.