My letter to Wash Post Re:Attacking Clark on Iowa

[robbedvoter]

My letter to the Wash Post editorial attacking Clark again:

To: [e-mail]

Subject: Gen, Clark, picking his battles

Harold Meyerson writes: "In the spirit of Bertolt Brecht's maxim that an unpopular government would do well to elect a new people, Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman have opted to bypass the Iowa primary"

Wow! Such literate name dropping as Brecht! Too bad Mr Meyerson didn't research the subject at hand: Iowa doesn't have primaries. Iowa has caucases - a none too democratic system where only 11% of democrats participate and a few party bosses get to pic the reps. I know you are desperately trying to make this relevant (Gephardt being your paper's designated loser to Bush), but guess what? Harkin won in 1992 in Iowa, and Carter came in second after "undecided" in the year he won. So, General Clark will appeal to Iowa voters but not to the few deal makers that you are so enamored of."

This editorial: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61888-2003Oct21.html

[fob]

1. Ouch! Nice job.

Uh, Mr. Myerson, this way to the steps to come down off the high horse.

[baby_bear]

2. Back to the drawing board

The opinion column (not an editorial) does acknowledge Iowa's caucuses.

I thought the reference to Brecht's maxim was apt, regardless of whether I agree with his inference about Lieberman and Clark wanting a different voting public than Iowa presents; I don't see the need to derogate that in particular. But not only that -- Myerson really doesn't criticize Clark for bypassing Iowa at all, as he does Lieberman. His criticism of Clark is issue-hopping, to which he devotes most of his column.

I suggest you reconstruct your letter to better reflect the column's point, and don't forget to use a spell checker.

This is meant in all good intentions; I'm an inveterate editor.

s_m