The early pres­i­den­tial line

Los Angeles Times - - OPINION -

Re “The miss­ing Democrats,” Ed­i­to­rial, April 14

Oh, joy: More than a year and a half be­fore the next pres­i­den­tial elec­tion and the stage al­ready is set for the most ca­cophonous, mean-spir­ited and pro­tracted cam­paign in Amer­i­can his­tory.

Be­tween the GOP’s clown-car can­di­dates and the Democrats’ bag­gage­laden de­fault nom­i­nee, the me­dia have am­ple raw ma­te­rial to numb us with 18 months of painful, non­stop par­ti­san spin and palaver.

My mod­est pro­posal for The Times: For at least the next 12 months, run a sep­a­rate sec­tion de­voted solely to the 2016 cam­paign. Most of us could sum­mar­ily dis­pose of it, whereas po­lit­i­cal junkies could get their fix straight from your po­lit­i­cally sat­u­rated cam­paign sec­tion.

A win-win, no?

Christine Hagel

Orcutt, Calif.

Your ed­i­to­rial ap­pro­pri­ately laments the ap­par­ent fact that for­mer Sec­re­tary of State Hil­lary Rod­ham Clin­ton will have no sub­stan­tive op­po­si­tion to sharpen her skills and mes­sage dur­ing the pri­mary sea­son, as con­trasted with the deep Repub­li­can field.

The larger ques­tion is how did the Demo­cratic Party find it­self in such a con­di­tion? There are three pos­si­ble con­clu­sions: There are no other Democrats qual­i­fied to run; Clin­ton has amassed a for­mi­da­ble and in­sur­mount­able well of cash and tal­ent; or the Clin­ton ma­chine has fended off other vi­able can­di­dates.

None of th­ese speak well for the Demo­cratic Party as a whole. They sug­gest a dis­re­gard for diver­gent opin­ions in lieu of an easy win.

Glen Esnard

New­port Beach

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.