Letters to the Editor
-
@NY Shooter
NYShooter: "While Joan certainly doesn’t need me, or anyone else for that matter, to defend her, I believe the key word in her response was “annoying;” as in, “YOU’RE annoying.”
Thanks for the translation, but that was evident from Joan's post.
NYShooter: "...you have nothing of value to say, nor do you add anything of value to the discourse."
You are entitled to your opinion. I could probably say the same about you. What have you contributed of value?
NYShooter: "The one thing you do have, and you have it perfected like no one I’ve ever seen, is a cut ’n paste tool……on steroids."
It's just my style. Makes it easier to remember everything I want to reply to if it's there in front of me. It also helps prevent me from misstating somebody's words or intent, since their words are right there in front of me while I'm responding.
NYShooter: "You seem to have devoted your life to dissecting comments by people who hold slightly different views than your own, line by line (as the defense lawyers did in the Rodney King trial) and then answer them with comments that are incontrovertible."
You're accusing me of taking people's words out of context, or cutting them into pieces that do not represent the points they're making. That's not true at all, though. I try to make sure I'm responding to the person's intended meaning.
-
@Anonymust
Anonymust: "Broadsheet, SYA, and some others are the ones I've given up on. And this one may be two days old, but I've also been reading it for two days, just like you."
Broadsheet is hit-and-miss. I think Clark-Flory, Hepola, Traister and other all write very well (who did I miss? Catherine Price?) and have amusing approaches. But you're right, the comments aren't always up to par. I am not fond of some of the male writers who seem to get a kick out of incensing the female writers.
Since You Asked's comments are damaged by virtue of the fact that so many people write long, detailed responses. I have been guilty of that at times. It's all too easy to click "Post Comment" and spew advice to a nameless, faceless person -- or to pick on them for whatever foolishness is indicated in their question.
I haven't read most of this particular thread. I blew it off for a while, then clicked the "Joan Walsh" link in the navigation to see if she had written anything new. There's a lot of recent developments to comment on, and I wanted to know what Walsh thought of them. Instead it was still the CNN argument, and I scanned it to see if they still had the "wealthy" error in there, and had to say something for the simple fact that "grumpy" is so much funnier.
Anyway, I hope you will continue to post comments in spite of all the annoying people (including myself).
-
Begala has it right
Unfortunately, Donna is wrong here...Castellanos is right when he says that Obama DID have a broad spectrum of voters in the small states he won, ones which had infinitesimal Dem organizations, and it was easy for him to build a coalition. This was not so in the bigger states where the party is more active, and where his message of "hope" and "change" comes across as nebulous and too indefinite for people who care about the here and now. Hillary has and still is very specific on the stump, while Obama is still doing his lecture circuit, which, to blue collar voters, is a big turn off.
Obama is attracting eggheads and African Americans, and that coalition is what costs every Dem to lose...think Michael Dukakis...
-
Facts
Was this posted to bury the column about Obama's win?
This is just a transcript of a pretty typical cable-news dustup. Not much revealed here. Move along.
-- Xrandadu Hutman
Obama's win in NC...expected...no surprise...
Obama losing in IN...NOT expected...he was up by 8 just 10 days before...
West Virginia and Kentucky set to hand him true smackdowns...
WVA: Losing by 20...Kentucky: Losing by 15...
So no one cares that he won ONE state for the first time in 3 months...whoooooooooooopedeedoo...
-
Can this be?
I’m finding it difficult to get current stats on the voting result totals of the primaries and caucuses. As of a month ago Hillary was leading Obama by a pretty wide margin if you counted only registered DEMOCRATS………and that’s counting the caucuses, which many (me included) think are not democratic or representative.
Anybody got up to date figures?
-
@MCE007
MCE007: "Obama losing in IN...NOT expected...he was up by 8 just 10 days before..."
Really? Show me your source. The week prior, Obama was down even further in the polls in Indiana, all due the Rev. Wright situation. Obama actually narrowed the gap in Indiana in the last few days running up to the election, and the whole time he and his campaign were saying they expected to lose. Clinton's "gas-tax" gambit seemed also to hurt her.
What you will realize if you study the polling is that in the week running up to both electins, Obama raised his numbers significantly by blasting Wright and then not playing into the gas-tax gimmick. Polls also show that Obama narrowed the gap in terms of voting percentage from whites, especially white women.
West Virginia and Kentucky will probably go to Clinton, but will it help her win the nomination?
-
@NYShooter
NY Shooter: "I’m finding it difficult to get current stats on the voting result totals of the primaries and caucuses."
The CNN political section has a very easy-to-use rundown of each state's election results.
Try their "election center":
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
NY Shooter: "...that’s counting the caucuses, which many (me included) think are not democratic or representative."
The superdelegate votes aren't all that democratic or representative either, but I don't see you complaining about them.
-
@Xrandadu Hutman
I'm not complaining about the rainfall in Nicaragua either. There again, maybe that's why I, among others, find you annoying.
The linchpin, the foundation, the basis for a democracy, as opposed to mob rule, is the right of free, fair, and SECRET voting rules. oh yeah, where EVERYONE'S vote is counted.
But that's just my opinion.
Thanks for the CNN tip.