The early presidential line
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?
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.