Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

JackSparx

Published Letters: 979
Editor's Choice: 18

Friday, April 11, 2008 06:57 AM

Bad apples and evil apple trees

Who expected the sort of quasi-legalistic, systemic approach the administration took toward torture? So much paper trail? It's like the obsessive record-keeping of Nazi Germany. I'm sorry, but the lack of dark rooms is almost more frightening than the cabinet level meetings. It means that the complicity spread far and wide, through the administration to include Rice and Powell and I assume Armitage, into Congress to include many Democrats on key committees and beyond. The torture and spy ethic reached far into the military complex, but also into law enforcement. And of course journalists who looked the other way.

Then again, all that paper is an opportunity to set things right. We may never know every nasty, anti-American, anti-Constitutional detail of this administration, but their self-righteous hubris is now entrapping them. Memos. Videos of torture. Minutes of meetings. Good god.

My own belief is that this openness resulted from bigotry. Just as slavery was openly defended when blacks were seen as less than human, Bush pushed the idea that we faced an enemy that not covered by legal process or principles of human rights.

There will be a long reckoning.

Friday, April 11, 2008 07:05 AM
Original article: Who's in charge here?

But it's a two-step

1. The President is insulated, not at that meetings, wasn't there.

2. The President takes "full responsibility."

The result is that no one is held accountable.

Saturday, April 12, 2008 01:02 PM

109 million reasons Obama needn't worry about charges of elitism from the Clintons

The Clintons should have played this one as a stiletto, not a pick axe. The irony, of course, is that they themselves are claiming that rural voters are too stupid to understand Obama's words.

The underlying narrative in PA remains reasonably positive for Obama despite this latest iteration of race-baiting from the Clintons. And, of course, the "debate" narrowly focused on this particular issue is an elite media affair. The discussion among real, truly intelligent people considers the Clintons anti-working class actions as well as Obama's truthful words.

So sue me.

Sunday, April 13, 2008 05:27 AM

And now for the blowback!

Looks like the Obama story peaked about 3AM last night. What's welling up in its place is Clinton's hypocrisy.

Which candidate profited from foreign speech deals? How much of that money has been lent to the campaign? Who exactly is the elitist?

The rhythm is working better for Obama than Clinton, with nine days to the vote.

Sunday, April 13, 2008 06:03 AM

Hillary Clinton's hard right turn

Remember how ditching Penn was a "sign" the campaign would be fronting more reasonable policy?

Instead, Clinton is on two wheels headed for the right ditch. This Joe McCarthy stuff is not so much wrong, as ineffective. Give the woman a bottle of vodka, but keep her off the campaign road.

The timing of this extremism also puts the lie to the idea, put forward by Walsh and Dowd and other female pundits, that men are to blame for the Clinton's wacky campaign messages.

Sunday, April 13, 2008 06:11 AM

Clinton's bootstraps message contradicts her policy promises

By rejecting "bitter" and inserting "resilient," Clinton has made a major misstep.

People ARE bitter. People ARE angry. And by God, they they have a right to be!

Worse for Clinton, by lauding the idea that people are going to pull themselves out of this themselves, she is speaking against HER OWN MESSAGE of the entire campaign.

Just to score a fleeting point against her opponent, Clinton has untethered her policy wonk message from her thematic rhetoric.

One again, it's liar, liar, pantsuit on fire.

Sunday, April 13, 2008 07:16 AM

Hey Goldwater Girl. Who's your daddy?

Let's play with the trope that Walsh and Dowd have started, that blames powerful men for everything wrong with the Clinton campaign.

Who is Clinton's daddy? Who funds her attacks on Obama?

Bill, obviously. But he's just the conduit. The, um, pimp if you will. (Hey the Clintons can't get me fired if I don't have a job.)

Who is Hillary's daddy?

Is it the Prince of Dubai?

Is it Hong Kong businessmen?

Is it Ron Birkle?

Is it "rich Democratic donors"?

Who will Clinton answer to, when it comes time to kill health care reform, ax welfare again, or ram an anti-labor trade agreement through congress?

Sunday, April 13, 2008 07:37 AM

"Obama's wordy approach to cover his ass won't be read by many."

Sorry, but that's all I read of your wordy post.

Obama doesn't even have to reply to win the nomination. But, your point is well taken for his supporters: They should hit Clinton hard and short with questions on her profiteering from trade deals and the war years.

Sunday, April 13, 2008 07:43 AM

If you're not bitter, you're rich.

I just hung a sing on my door, next to the Obama sign:

DAMN RIGHT I'M BITTER

Most Active Letters Threads

430

The crazy, irrational beliefs of Muslims

Tom Friedman explains the real problem: stupid Muslims think the U.S. is about war and aggression.
426

A key British official reminds us of the forgotten anthrax attack

A vast array of establishment and expert sources do not believe this episode was really resolved.
210

Is Obama's civil liberties record understandable?

Was it unreasonable to expect him to adhere to his commitments regarding the Constitution?
111

How dare you criticize wasteful defense spending!

So you think it's only terrorist-appeasing lefties who are down on Pentagon profligacy? Think again
61

Police to talk to Woods

Early morning crash raises questions, and revives tabloid speculation

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon