Letters to the Editor
-
Never over estimate the intelligence of the electorate
As much as I agree with the principles and message of Barack, I don't believe his ad will sell as well as Hillary's merely because it appeals to intellect and not emotion. I believe that the American electorate, will always get sucked in by emotion. Consider the mushroom ad by LBJ in 1964, the Willie Horton ad by W v1.0, the folksy appeal of W v2.0 in the election of 2000, 9/11, etc, adnauseum. Sorry, Barack.
-
Barack Talks Too Much
People will be put off. The more places he goes, the more people will decide to vote for Edwards or Hillary.
And M. Scherer's cartoon looks better than M. Scherer himself. Mike! Turn sideways or something!
-
Yes, but Hillary can win!
Salon is revealing misguided idealism, in its preference for Obama. Clinton is easily the better candidate (and, taking into account, the political realities making their apparent political differences of little practical significance), principly on the grounds that she's considerably more likely to win the election. Salon is apparently preoccupied with, and prefers, Obama's Naderesque, anti-establishment "rhetoric," and has joined a chorus of Hillary-haters, hoping to display their good faith. If they can't have Obama, they'll take Edwards, next; more leftish "rhetoric." But, in both cases, they're far more likley to lose the election. Why then, doesn't Salon simply fight for Kucinich, if your idealism always transcends mere practical concerns, such as "winning" elections? Hasn't this dawned on you yet? Do you suppose that it's a coincidence that establishment media are nearly apoplectic in their efforts to derail Hillary's campaign "before" she's nominated? Didn't you get a taste of how the establishment feels about Hillary, from Tim Russert's feverishly, single minded attack mode, a few nights ago? Perhaps the mindnumbingly stupid notions that Hillary's is media's "favorite dem candidate," or the republican party's favorite candidate" is the purest bullshit.
-
But, you can't resist losing, can you?
How remarkable and persistent are the myths, that a Leftie can win elections in the USA, and that any Dem that works up an "emotional" appeal, to win votes, is betraying our principles. Doesn't it occur to any of you, that emotional appeals, such as you believe Hillary is making, can also be cleverly, and "intelligently" constructed; that they can be devised to persuade the electorate to allow a democrat to become president? Why do you insist on demanding that democrats campaign in such a way that they inevitably lose elections to ever more vicious rightwingers? What the hell will it take for you to get over your delusional expectations?
Where does this faith in the "rhetoric" you hear from Kucinich, or Ron Paul, or Nader, etc., come from; and why do you allow it to destroy any hope of electing a democrat? The stupidity is breathtaking.
-
Intellect?
As much as I agree with the principles and message of Barack, I don't believe his ad will sell as well as Hillary's merely because it appeals to intellect and not emotion.
It may seem at a glance as if Obama is being scholarly and serious, except for one thing: there is nothing wrong with Social Security. More money going out than coming in during Boomer retirement is part of the plan. I have no idea what Obama is doing nor can I figure out exactly what kind of intellect it appeals to.
Tactically, I think Obama's ad is an attempt to flatter people who pride themselves on being sensible and practical. In that sense it is making no less an emotional appeal than Hillary's ad is making.
-
Give that man a real microphone
Hey Salon,
Why do these A/V postings have such bad sound all the time? Salon Conversations is often sub-par just like this one from Michael Scherer. Buy a lavalier mic and plug it into that camera. Get your production value at least higher than what a kid can do on his/her own.
-
Obama's Bad Judgement - Social Security is in OK Shape
Obama appears to have picked Social Security as his "key issue". But the Social Security trust fund, even under the most conservative assumptions, and existing contribution and benefit levels, does not require reducing benefits until 2044, and even then can continue paying benefits at 70% of existing levels.
It's Medicare that is within 3 or 4 years of complete insolvency.
Just on this basis, Obama has demonstrated very questionable fiscal and political judgment. I seriously doubt if he is presidential material. I mean, who was the last guy who made Social Security a "key issue"? And I can't imagine anyone less presidential than that incompetent lying thief.