We'll do anything to avoid (we are unable to develop) new ideas, now we're reduced to commenting on letters to the
L. A. Times. A
Mark Papas from Los Angeles types:
Hillary Rodham Clinton's voters are the high school educated, union workers, elderly and women, and she benefits from the Democrats' party machine. Barack Obama's voters are the young or the new to the party, college educated, more affluent and minorities, and he benefits from grass-roots appeal. One raises money through wealthy individual donors, the other through large numbers of small donors.
Interesting, that the less educated, older people, women & union members are not considered "grass roots," but the more educated & affluent are. Not the point though. Assuming what is said is true, & we've heard it a lot, so it must be true (that's a joke, Goebbels fans) why is Sen. Clinton the financial favorite of "wealthy individual donors" (we have been advised that she's a darling of Wall St. corporations as well) when her electoral support is from those not as well off, while Sen. Obama's money comes from large numbers of small donors, yet his votes come from the up-scale? It would seem to us that those affluent college grads would be part of the wealthy individuals & corporate interests, while those huddled masses yearning to breathe free would be making the smaller individual gifts. Just an interesting dichotomy, really, but it makes one wonder. (Garrgh, this last paragraph makes us sound like Megan McArdle.)
Also in today's
Times,
Patt ("The Hatt") Morrison asks the question:
Does City Hall have a drive-up suggestion window? Or the e-mail equivalent? Short of leaving a note for the mayor under the doormat at Getty House, how else can Angelenos get their leaders' attention?
It's as easy as ABC, Patt. If you want the ears of our so-called leaders, be a land developer (Didn't gawd "develop" all that land?) or a billboard co. W/ plenty of money. For campaign "donations."
No comments:
Post a Comment