Letters to the Editor
-
Money better spent elsewhere?
A counter argument could be made that all the money spent ad-buying in the media (a large portion of any campaign expenditures), could be better put to use in get-out-the vote and register campaigns, with funds left over for the general. I realise that there is a make 'lemonade out of lemons' perspective here, but that's no reason to keep buying lemons. Unless you really enjoy the taste.
-
@ Reality-Based-Liberal (Joan for Barak)
It's not spin!!!! I mean it.
If you look closely at Joan's articles over the last three months or so, I can make a case that when she speaks with substance and when her arguements hold up, she is mostly making the point for Barak. She does create many posts like the one today (which is not explicity "for" Hilary by any strech), but notice their structure:
they have the scent of "bending over backwards" to make sure we see how "carefully" she is considering things. The only problem is that it's very hard to see how she reaches the conclusion.
I see why so many people here are concluding that Joan wants Hiliary to win, but I think it is misreading her tendencies. And i think it is more instructive for all of us to ask why somebody like Joan would ignore important issues that are related to the media coverage of this election. But I'm betting she's voting for Barak.
-
@Steve1us: You're right, I'm wrong.
I just found the article I THOUGHT contained that notion, and as you correctly noted, I got it 180° wrong! So my apologies to Joan, and my thanks to you for catching my error.
Oddly enough, Joan says the opposite, clearly stating that she's NOT a supporter, while defending Hillary as strongly as anyone on her campaign team. While reading through her blog posts, I counted at least 3 similar denials, interspersed among Clinton rationalizations and official talking points.
I was completely wrong that she has stated her preference on the record. Still it was hard for me to read the body of work and not come away with that impression. Yet I have a feeling Clinton supporters would see Obama bias in a reporter/blogger who repeated his talking points as consistently and faithfully as Joan. It's likely a mistake to attribute bias to over-exposure to The Usual Suspects.
-
-- Carol Richards
And i think it is more instructive for all of us to ask why somebody like Joan would ignore important issues that are related to the media coverage of this election. But I'm betting she's voting for Barak.
I don't give a rip if she votes for Clinton. That is her prerogative. She rips into Obama every chance she gets. Where is her column on Clinton lies and exaggerations. That is called equal opportunity journalism. What she is practicing is of the yellow form.
-
@ Joan -- Dan Balz, like you, misses the point completely.
Your pathetic attempt to find a silver lining in this bloody Democratic primary debacle -- namely the fact that Dan Balz thinks it's good for the party -- is more evidence of just how much Klinton Kool Aid you've been drinking.
The irony here is what your article SHOULD have been talking about is buried in the third line of your last paragraph, reading:
"I'm concerned about reports that as many as a quarter of each Democrat's supporters say they'll vote for John McCain if their candidate fails."
You're concerned? Oh, yes, Joan, BE concerned. Be VERY concerned. Because it's not some meaningless report that you can simply brush aside and say -- "But I don't believe it" -- even though that's exactly what you did. This report is a blockbuster insight taken from a current Rasmussen poll. THAT's the story here, Joan. Not some starry-eyed take on "how good" all this gutter sniping will be for the party over the next three months or more.
The fact is, Hillary needs to get out -- now.
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen of Politico that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of winning the nomination. Now, after losing her battle for revotes in Michigan and Florida, and topping it off with her "sleep deprived" Bosnia lie, David Brooks of the New York Times believes she's probably down to a 5 percent chance.
I suggest your time would be better spent reading yesterday's article by Mr. Brooks' entitled "The Long Defeat" rather than deluding yourself over fantasies put forth by misguided scribes like Dan Balz. The Brooks article details precisely what Hillary is willing to do to the party over the next three months for her meeker 5% chance at victory. Go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html
and, for once, allow reality to slap you in the face nice and hard, Joan.
-
@ Carol Richards
Go read Garrison's article today.
It's spelled B-A-R-A-C-K. Barack Obama. BaraCk. BARACK.
Why should we trust your opinions if you can't spell the frontrunner's name correctly?
-
@ Steve1us
I think Joan probably believes she is a fair journalist. She probably believes that Clinton misspoke and that Obama lied about not knowing everything in Rev. Wright's heart.
It's not so different from other posters on this site, like ShawnWM who actually think by campaigning and winning Obama is stealing the nomination from Clinton.
Another analogy might be someone who goes through mental gymnastics to believe a spouse who professes fidelity, despite direct evidence offered by the spouse's lover (who the must be the devil, making it up out of jealousy of a good marriage).
-
I'm Starting To Wonder How Far Gone
Some of this Obama crowd is...........If he wins the nomination come August they will be saying McCain needs to drop out now.
-
@ The Notorious W.E.S.
Did you support Nader's right to run in 2000 and 2004 (regardless of who you voted for)?
-
here's the thing
If Clinton could continue her campaign without resorting to gutter politics, Joan's analysis might be sound.
But the very premise, as stated in that quote she supplies at the bottom, is "provided the campaign doesn't become nastier."
Now, as I see it, before the kitchen-sink strategy, goodwill was high, many were talking about "two great candidates" and about how whoever wins, it will be a banner year for Democrats, etc.
But Clinton decided the only way she could gain ground was to go kitchen-sink negative.
The 3am spot was the chief symbol of this strategy, and it probably worked.
But it didn't work enough, because she's still considerably behind.
She needs to win landslides from here on out and evidently the only way that will happen is if she discredits Obama as a candidate (kitchen sink?) and even as a human being (knee-cap?).
In other words, if Clinton were just lingering around and staying on message, Joan's analysis might be plausible.
But she's not. She's poisoning the well.
And she'll poison the well until she's compelled to stop.
What's her name was correct, she is a monster and she will stoop to anything.
Powers, that's her name.
I can hardly wait to see what her next move will be.
Or, perhaps she has another strategy, a more honorable strategy to bring about the landslides she needs?