Obama voters not so na’ve

Daniel Greenberg’s letter (“”Obama counting on uninformed youth”” 1/29) focused on one central fallacy, that Obama’s voters are as he states, “”na’ve and rather uninformed.”” Though this may be his opinion, it is disproved by simple facts. The truth is that in the primaries the most educated among the voters sided with Obama. According to exit polls, the more education an individual has, the more likely that individual was to vote for Obama. For instance, in New Hampshire, according to the CNN exit polls, 25 percent of those polled who did not earn a high school degree voted for Obama, and 61 percent voted for Hillary. This figure shifts as education increases until those with a post graduate degree voted for Obama by 43 percent while the same group voted for Hillary by 31 percent. Also, in the same polls, the majority of those with a college degree voted from Obama. This relationship between education and a vote for Obama can be seen in other exit polls. According to the polls, Obama voters are generally more educated than those supporting other candidates. It is a natural step that these higher education levels would lead to a better knowledge of the issues. As such, a better knowledge of the issues would allow an individual to choose a candidate that will better solve the problems currently facing America and the world. Maybe a vote for Obama isn’t so “”na’ve”” after all.

Jonathan Black
sophomore majoring in economics and political science

Wildcat is ‘anti-Israel propaganda’

I was disappointed – but hardly surprised – that in Tuesday’s article about students protesting Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip (“”Students march for blockade issues””), Heather Trujillo failed to mention the Jewish state’s justifiable reasons for besieging the territory. Media arts senior Justin Mashouf, quoted in the piece, said “”the media has done a poor job of representing the reality of the situation,”” and the Wildcat unfortunately provided evidence that Mr. Mashouf is correct. “”The reality of the situation”” is that there are two sides to this conflict, but over the years the Wildcat has been as enthusiastic about recognizing “”the rights of Palestinian people”” as it has been reluctant to admit that the Israeli people have rights too. Every day from the Gaza Strip, Hamas launches rockets at civilians living in nearby towns, such as Sderot, in Israel; perhaps those missiles represent an inconvenient truth which, if left unacknowledged by the Wildcat, ensures Israelis look like big, bad bullies in the end. While I’m sure that this paper has good cause to be amnestic regarding Israel’s complete pullout from Gaza in late 2005, the omission says a lot about the paper’s commitment to journalistic integrity. One gets the sense when reading the Wildcat that we are being treated not to facts, but to what can be reasonably termed as “”anti-Israel propaganda.”” The last time I checked, the Arizona Daily Wildcat was supposed to be a source of information and open debate for UA students, faculty – and alumni such as myself. Why, then, does it consistently act as if it’s in tryouts to be the new mouthpiece of the Arab League?

Jeremy Slavin
UA alumnus

Excellent opinion on Gaza

I want to commend Yusra Tekbali on a well-written opinion (“”No lightbulbs in Gaza – or in the heads of politicians””) published in the Jan. 30 issue of the Wildcat.

It was good to see thoughtful, critical, researched descriptions of the situation in Gaza and world response to it.

Gretchen Gibbs
Learning Technologies Center