Letters to the Editor
FredrickBernanke
Published Letters: 170 Editor's Choice: 8
-
Greenwald's Producing Some Good Stuff; If Only He Could Jettison the Petty Partisanship...
[Read the article: Larry Di Rita's responses to questions about the "military analyst" program]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]GG:
You are fast becoming the only justification for Salon.com's existence.
This is fabulous work, IMHO.
...If only you can break free from your damned liberal bias and not revert to anti-Bushisms in your conclusions and accusations.
It's Government-as-such that is always guilty of these machinations, irrespective if they are led by Der Fuhrer or FDR/JFK/LBJ.
The last point is a conservative/libertarian one, devoid of partisanship, I hope.
Once you unshackle yourself from leftist (or rightist) ideological bias, you're going to be one of the few remaining "voices in the wilderness" out there.
THEY ALL DO IT, OR TRY TO DO IT.
Some are more sophisticated at it than others, but party affiliations and even policies are irrelevant.
FB
-
The Chess Match is Over; By Resigning with Honor, HRC Creates an Historical Legacy for Herself and All Women
[Read the article: Hillary enters death-with-dignity phase]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In world-class chess matches between International Grand Masters, when one of the opponents recognizes that he (not many "she's" in this arena of competition) is in an unwinnable position, he resigns. No dishonor attached to it...it's expected. In fact, it's an implicit complement to his opponent's skill. (If I can see I'm done, he also can.)
Hillary Clinton has established herself as an International--or perhaps more difficult in the USA-- as a National Grandmaster of Politics. She knows she is in an unwinnable position. Yet, unlike the Grandmasters of Chess, she refuses to concede.
She, unlike chess players, clings almost obsessively to a hopeless cause...a terrible trait for a chess player and an even more terrible one for a President of the United States.
Her (failed) campaign has opened the door for qualified women to run as serious candidates for the office in the future. Despite her inexplicable, bold-faced lying during the campaign, she has managed to go where no (US) woman has gone before: A female candidate that was taken seriously by the electorate, regardless of party affiliation---something no other woman in the history of the country has ever done.
She was able to accomplish this on the sparsest of resumes; she displayed both the emotional and physical fortitude that voters expect in a potential president; she certainly outdid her distinguished husband on the "grace under fire" front, never appearing peevish or overly sensitive to criticism, never getting red-faced pissed-off at questioners...just a few tears welling up in New Hampshire. Overall, a fantastic performance.
She had the bad fortune to run against a phenomenon: an African-American, good-looking, younger, JFKesque orator who could only be criticized--ironically enough--as "elitist." Who the hell would ever have thought the first serious African-American prez candidate would have to refute charges of his elitism?
She did the best she could; and in doing so elevated all women.
She failed on the combination of her own flaws and Obama's extraordinary talents.
She should resign with honor, like an International Grandmaster in Chess.
-
HRC's Legacy Need Not Be Quite as Vampire-ish as Paglia Imagines
[Read the article: She won't go easy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In world-class chess matches between International Grand Masters, when one of the opponents recognizes that he (not many "she's" in this arena of competition) is in an unwinnable position, he resigns. No dishonor attached to it...it's expected. In fact, it's an implicit complement to his opponent's skill. (If I can see I'm done, he also can.)
Hillary Clinton has established herself as an International--or perhaps more difficult in the USA-- as a National Grandmaster of Politics. She knows she is in an unwinnable position. Yet, unlike the Grandmasters of Chess, she refuses to concede.
She, unlike chess players, clings almost obsessively to a hopeless cause...a terrible trait for a chess player and an even more terrible one for a President of the United States.
Her (failed) campaign has opened the door for qualified women to run as serious candidates for the office in the future. Despite her inexplicable, bold-faced lying during the campaign, she has managed to go where no (US) woman has gone before: A female candidate that was taken seriously by the electorate, regardless of party affiliation---something no other woman in the history of the country has ever done.
She was able to accomplish this on the sparsest of resumes; she displayed both the emotional and physical fortitude that voters expect in a potential president; she certainly outdid her distinguished husband on the "grace under fire" front, never appearing peevish or overly sensitive to criticism, never getting red-faced pissed-off at questioners...just a few tears welling up in New Hampshire. Overall, a fantastic performance.
She had the bad fortune to run against a phenomenon: an African-American, good-looking, younger, JFKesque orator who could only be criticized--ironically enough--as "elitist." Who the hell would ever have thought the first serious African-American prez candidate would have to refute charges of his elitism?
She did the best she could; and in doing so elevated all women.
She failed on the combination of her own flaws and Obama's extraordinary talents.
She should resign with grace, like an International Grandmaster in Chess.
-
@myerslaw
[Read the article: She won't go easy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Mr. Bernanke's reference to the conduct of chess matches was superb -- and when you cannot survive as King, you probably shouldn't get to be Queen, either."
-- myerslaw
That's the nicest thing anyone has said about me ever on Salon. Thanks.