Letters to the Editor
-
Who are you talking about Nita?
I am not being a smart ass and I am talking about real issues.
Advancing the notion that serious people who care about the issues have a duty NOT to hold elected officials or candidates responsible when they have a "D" after their name is a downright shocking abdication of one's role in the democratic process.
As for your comments about Fox, it sounds like you think Fox is bad because it's anti-Democrat, while I think it's bad because it isn't news.
-
Reality based liberal...it's called a letter to the editor
I was talking about the article. My comments had absolutely nothing to do with you. Usually that's what I do...respond to the content of the article or the posted item, not to the "responses" unless I am personally provoked. And usually not even then. To all those who want a thread where they can bash each other incessantly with the typewritten word...I have no problem with that. Go ahead. But I do reserve the right to voice my opinion about the ARTICLE without you thinking you're necessarily the center of my attention. Thank you for that courtesy.
I dislike Fox, not because it is "anti-Democrat", but because, as a federally licensed broadcaster, it is indebted to the American public and has been endowed with a public trust. And I don't believe that their indebtedness is served by blatantly partisan positions and doctored, filtered, twisted or otherwise edited misrepresentations of the "news". Opinions are ok, but they need to be identified as editorial opinions. And it isn't too much to expect that they be based on the facts.
I got my journalism degree from the University of Washington. Old school. Where news was news, and propaganda was something news people didn't do. Unfortunately, old school is pretty much obsolete. How's that for reality?
-
Nothing a Politician does can ever be trusted
I therefore have no problem with a candidate who agrees with another. Nor do I have a problem with a candidate who speaks bluntly about another. All I care about is that what they say is reasonable and conforms with actual facts.
If everything every candidate says is going to be interpreted as "calculated" than it stands to reason that when Obama and Clinton agree with each-other, it's just as possible that they are doing it because they actually agree. OR, maybe they just are trying to remove the atmosphere of bitter partisanship that has been ripping this country apart ever since the impeachment procedings against Bill Clinton nearly a decade ago.
-
My apologies to Nita
I thought when you referenced the forum that you were talking about other posters bashing the Dems. You can understand why I was a little surprised. You have my sincere apology.
-
And the not-so-front-runners?
If the story is what we make it, I would like the story of last night's debate to be less about Clinton and Obama--and even Edwards--and more about Richardson, Biden, and and the rest.
For too long we've been focusing on the "top" two or three candidates, very possibly propelling one of them into "presumptive nominee" status. This is to our detriment. At this stage, we need to encourage more voices, not fewer. If Clinton or Obama really have the goods to be the best candidate and a good president, they'll still be there when we've given everyone else a proper airing.
But we seem to have been following the opposite trajectory: keeping the spotlight on those already enjoying the limelight, and as a result, keeping some possibly better candidates in the shadows (where there's no exposure and less money).
So instead of another story on say, Barack Obama (I'd like to say this much about him, though: personally, I think the bloom has started coming off the rose), how about focusing on something more dynamic? Like how Richardson's stock may have moved? Or Kucinich's, Biden's, Dodd's, or Gravel's?
I think it's important. I think it's important that the field not be measured by a Clinton- or Obama-standard. But I worry that the constant focus on these front-runners encourages exactly that.
-
The debate format: a demeaning device
While I agree that none of the current candidates are that impressive, what dismayed me more was the idiotic nature of the debate format. Asking candidates for a show of hands or to reply in one sentence, takes the already abysmal level of debates to a new low.
There should be sufficient time to engage in a debate of some depth, and the questions should be ones that require some real thought. Instead of a question such as, 'What would you do as president if you just found out that two American cities were bombed?,' ask, "What changes in domestic and foreign policy would you make to better protect the U.S. from further terrorist attacks and to better respond if such attacks were to take place? You have five minutes to answer."
-
of course
Of course they got along. In all likelihood, the next president's running mate is part of the group.