Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
cythera45
Published Letters: 729 Editor's Choice: 5
One more of these vacuous screeds from this ridiculous "pundit" and I will cancel my subscription.
Has there been a more grotesquely posturing little rightwing militarist twit as absurd as Erik Prince since the heyday of Oliver North and Iran Contra. He'd better enjoy the gravy train he's on because, come 2009, a new adminsitration is going to slam the door in his smug little privileged face.
Why do we have to listen to this shrieking emptiness? I get queasy now whenever the site starts to load on my browser, fearing that I'll see yet again that hideous smirking face.
I agree with those who call for this reviewer to step down or be reassigned. She has trashed the two best movies of the year now, this and No Country for Old Men. I think they hurt her little head.
On the plus side, she is not as stupid or irritating as Camille Paglia.
If you honestly believe this Pats team is objectively better than the 72 Dolphins, you are truly an idiot.
Edwards made a total ass of himself in the debate and with his crass comments about Clinton after her emotional display. Then she kicked him hard in the ass. He is done, whether he or his supporters understand that or not.
"The Obamas represent the future, not the past."
This is genius talking, GENIUS! And she gets paid for this...?
More aimless, trendy, vacuous psychologizing. I expected more from Salon, but then again, why should I? You publsh Camille Paglia, after all.
We've had enough of this petty crap. Both Hillary and Obama agreed last night. Just drop it.
You make it sound as if Obama's attack on Clinton for sitting on the K-Mart board was a response to her low blow about Rezco, but in fact it was exactly the opposite. I doubt she would even have mentioned that if he hadn't taken that cheap shot. And you also pretend that the attacks on Obama were over minor issues, yet I think both Clinton and Edwards scored major blows on him over health care, over his voting present yet attacking them for their up/down votes, over voting against a cap on credit-card rates in the bankruptcy bill. Obama stammered embarrassingly trying to respond in particular to Edwards' criticisms. I thought he had a terrible debate.
Twice tonight he said something about taking heat or getting flak from his opponents on the stage, but if he thinks this is tough, my God how will he possibly defend himself against the Rovian minions sure to come out of the woodwork with buckets of slime if he gets the nomination? You can't sing Kumbaya to them, or plead for unity over division, or whisper a few words of ambiguous praise about Ronald Reagan. They will just snarl and rip at you like savage dogs. Clinton knows that, and so does Edwards. Maybe Obama can get better at defending himself, but he has a steep learning curve. At times tonight he sounded positively Kerryesque. Go and replay that explanation for his "present" votes--embarrassingly lame.
Your hatred of the Clintons is obviously intense and you're welcome to it. And if you'd rather sit out the election than vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination, that's obviously your call. But if you can't see the difference between the Republicans and their supporters and Hillary and her supporters, then I guess we must be living in alternate universes.
It's a bit disturbing to me, speaking as a Democrat first (and a John Edwards supporter second), to hear the intensity of the scorched-earth attitudes coming from some of the Obama fans. It's either their candidate or no-one--and anyone who attacks their candidate is an evil, mendacious, Rovian creep "undeserving of Democratic support" (to paraphrase someone's letter). Speaking for myself, I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it winds up being. The stakes of this election are so much bigger than whether we think Obama is a transcendent genius or Hillary a scheming bitch--no-one can seriously doubt that either would be a better President than any of the Republican thugs on offer.
Good luck to Obama with that strategy. And if you want to sit out 2008, good luck to you.
Hillary is an evil Rovian liar. Obama is a sanctimonious lightweight with a glass jaw. One of them is likely to be the Democratic nominee for President, and I will vote for either. If you won't, then take the blame for the consequences. (That said, I prefer Edwards.)
In terms of campaign tactics, if you think Obama has been running an innocent, civil, above-board campaign, you are deluding yourself. He is not as slimy as Clinton by any means, but he has gotten in a number of questionable low blows--such as his campaign manager in Nevada urging Republicans to switch their registration to Democrat to vote against Hillary. He apologized for that, and that's fine. But, folks, campaigns are vicious knife-fights. It has never been any different. Go read some history books and see what John Adams said about Thomas Jefferson. Not pretty.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
