Letters to the Editor
burlydee
Published Letters: 283 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Thanks for telling me what I can and cannot be outraged about
[Read the article: Reexamining the Ferraro fracas]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I had to walk away from my computer, after reading Alex's "response" to the Ferraro fracas. What a load of crap? People before me have said it much better...
One thing though. I'm tired of the writers at Salon insulting their reader's intelligence. I see all the time here; Koppelman, Joan, Greenwald - acidic responses to legitimate complaints/criticisms. As much as the War Room has been filled with he said / she said BS over the last 3 months, especially the last 3 days of Spitzer, to ignore this story is an extreme example of bias, lack of journalistic integrity, and profound ignorance. This isn't a story that has traction because some talking heads keep bringing it up - I was extremely offended not only by Ferraro's statements, but the Clinton camps response. Ferraro was defiant until the end. I denounce and reject Salon's coverage of this story.
I'm sorry that Alex feels like he knows more than his readers. I'm sorry that he feels that a personal, vicious attack of this nature is simply politics as usual. I'm sorry he think my anger is overblown or a product of the campaign season.
I deal with people everyday who have Geraldine Ferraro's exact attitude, and her big mouth was a signal to the rest of the country that the Clinton campaign feels the same way. Anything to win. Vile behavior on the part of the Clinton campaign, silently condoned by her cheerleaders in the blogosphere and on Capitol Hill.
And what a loathsome abdication of responsibilities from Salon. You are no better than Fox News or the Washington Post or the Politico. You spend so much time mocking those rags, but in the end, you behave just like them.
-
Completely Agree Kobe-Shi
[Read the article: High-level right-wing discourse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No more posts on Right-Wing Hate, until you address left-wing hate. The reason there is so much right wing hate in the media is because there are so many left-wingers silently nodding along.
I've also tried to get Glenn to address the subtle racism and dirty campaigning being done by the Clinton campaign and have been similarly shouted-down.
Silence is quiet affirmation.
-
@ adam.mcgahan
[Read the article: High-level right-wing discourse]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Adam,
I don't think Glenn has any duty to post about the presidential election. He doesn't have to endorse Obama or Clinton - hell, he could have endorsed Kucinich and I would still read him.
BUT, if you are going to talk about racism and negative campaigning and political propaganda than you need to talk about it from all sides. If Glenn feels that Obama has been sexist against Hillary, he has every right to write a post about it. But don't write posts about right-wingers playing racial or religious politics as if only right-wingers do it, when there are members of the Democratic party playing the same game, and playing it MUCH MORE EFFECTIVELY.
Who do you think Democratic voters trust more, Jonah Goldberg and the National Review or Hillary Clinton and Ferrarro? Who has a greater impact on our political discourse?
So no, Glenn doesn't have to address every issue I feel is important. But I think this was a huge issue. Its been in the media for several days. It concerns race, sex and how the media treats both. And I admire Glenn's writing, while I despise Koppleman and Conason. So I feel like I would rather the best writer at Salon address the issue, not two hacks. Basically the only reason I come to Salon is to read Glenn and the War Room. The War Room sucks now, and Glenn has been solid, but not on these issues. There is an elephant in the room he refuses to address.
-
The only thing "Ugly"
[Read the article: Daily Kos writers' "strike" gets ugly]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]is that Salon chose to report on a "writer's strike" that encompasses about 20 faceless people on the internet.
-
Koppleman...
[Read the article: No revote in Florida]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary Clinton won the original primary (as well as one in Michigan, which has also been sanctioned by the DNC) and her campaign has been pushing for a solution that would lead to the delegates from both states being counted.
tr.v. sanc·tioned, sanc·tion·ing, sanc·tions
1. To give official authorization or approval to: "The president, we are told, has sanctioned greed at the cost of compassion" (David Rankin).
2. To encourage or tolerate by indicating approval. See Synonyms at approve.
3. To penalize, especially for violating a moral principle or international law.
I don't know if it is bad writing or bias, well I do know (it's both) but c'mon. Let's try a little harder.
-
I'm Done Salon
[Read the article: Barack Obama delivers make-or-break speech on race]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You wrote one post about Ferraro, quoting only a bit of her statement, and ignoring the Hillary camp response which was equally inflamatory, but you quote Wright extensively. Make or break speech? I'm done War Room. Good bye.
-
hquan - Thank You
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]there have been a number of insightful comments in this thread. Much more insightful than the post that inspired them. I just want to highlight one, because it shows the shallow, petty, partisan nature of Joan's thinking -
*******************
View from the planet Walsh
"when...Wright denounced the Sharpeville massacre and the bombing of Hiroshima, and declared "white folks' greed runs a world in need," Obama knew he was at a radical black church."
Or that he was in the presence of someone who reads the newspapers.
*********************
Is this country not run by a small group of rich white males? An elite class, that very few women or minorities are privileged to join?
Is there not a history of American power being used in brutal ways for not so great reasons all across the Globe in the 20th Century?
Have black people not been subjected to an intense level of racism that has included physical violence, enslavement, medical experimentation as well as the restriction of certain rights accorded to most citizens?
What is so radical about these views?
Am I not at a progressive website?