Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
@AnaHadWolves (and others)
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since you seem to be one of the cadre driving the back and forth in these letter columns, I have a challenge for you: Take a break from the over-the-top sniping with other equally over-the-top accusers and instead respond to my previous letter.
Or respond to this one: Take a break and turn your passion on McCain.
What are McCain's shortcomings and problems which can be exploited and emphasized to win? How can we break the media's tendency to give McCain a free pass? How can we shame the biggest offenders into scrutinizing him more?
How can we get lazy journalists including Salon to spend less time on Democratic infights and more time on Republican failures? Not just the current problems, it's eight years of malfeasance and incompetence in every aspect of government. How can we get the media to examine an epic pattern of misrule extending from lying about stolen W keys to the current FAA disaster?
Also how can we get both candidates to promise to dismantle the unitary executive, close gitmo and other fixes which are just as important (and easier to do) than Iraq. Right now, McCain is the only one of the three who has vowed to stop the abuse of signing statements - one of few ways he doesn't suck.
More importantly, what are all the strategies and tactics needed to not just win the white house and win the congress, but also to make the Democrats fix things? What will be the most pressing problem to correct (the Justic Department)?
How can voters force a change to the primary system so this doesn't happen next time?
And again How does the public force the media to alter the lazy outrage mining and rhetorical falsehoods which worsen the discourse and serve the right wing?
And no, "Vote for Clinton/Obama and Obama/Clinton is dumb." doesn't answer any of this.
-
Outrage mining is now what Salon is about
[Read the article: No, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can we agree to let everyone vote, even if it goes to the convention and then support the nominee, no matter who it is?
-- apolloscreed
Well no, apollo. It seems the point of these articles and letters seems is the catharsis of raging against those who are essentially on your side.
This actually makes a bit of sense as raging directly at the Bush admnistration is like shouting into the void or only gets lame responses by the trolls left who defend the indefensible.
No matter how angry they are Clinton/Obama supporters still talk to each other and respond in somewhat coherent ways.
It's still depressing, because I think there are commenters here who really will flush the country down the toilet out of pure spite if their favorite Democrat doesn't win.
Plus Salon goes where the page counts are, even if this does put the general election at risk.
-
Hey, Rebecca Traister and Salon: You're Trolling. Readers are growing increasingly frustrated with Salon's cheap sensationalism, covert racism, biased potshots and reducto ad absurdum reasoning
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The biggest "evidence" of this controversey are outraged comments in response to trolling articles like this. Guess what, if you provoke the yahoos with outrage mining, many of the responses will be outraged. That's not evidence it's push polling. Meanwhile in real life, both are getting bashed.
I read as much Obama bashing as I do Clinton bashing - in places beyond the comment forms. If we used a similar low standard to label Obama bashing racists as is being used to label Clinton bashing sexist, they'd be just as close as they are in the polls.
I have yet to read a single Salon article that substantiates with hard numbers and research the Clinton has it worse.
Sexism is overt, racism is covert - that doesn't mean the latter isn't there. Perhaps if Traister examined the "Obama is a muslim" and other race baiting whacko comments she'd get a different picture.
Just look at how few articles Salon has published about the overt and covert racism of Wright and other negative coverage of Obama. Of course, this would require Salon examine some of it's own race bating articles.
Honestly, Salon, either display some honestly about your bias or stop writing about it.
If you spent as much time hitting McCain as you do crying sexism and inciting flamewars, this might be an alternative media. Instead you guys are worse than most talk radio.
Divisive articles like these don't help Clinton, they don't help Obama, they don't help the Democratic party. But they do help the sort of animosity and poor thinking which may ensure more years of Republican rule.
-
@ LSLE24
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Two reasons: 1) when there's work to be done, she'll be attacking the job...and Obama will be out shooting hoops; and 2) Hillary is ALL woman, and Obama is only half black.
And 3) You're a bigot. I don't know if you think it's okay because Clinton has been bashed, but what you wrote is race baiting.
-
Salon's Letters Column - not a representative sample of anything sane
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]As many people have pointed out - obsessing over subjective, selective and deliberately skewed impressions of the worst people among a candidate's supporters doesn't really prove anything.
If you look for proof Obama/Clinton supporters are jerks, you will always find something, but this doesn't necessarily prove anything. This is even more true when the sample is replies to an article which is picking a fight.
It even goads feminists into making racially charged comments as if sexism makes this okay.
Neither Obama nor Clinton can be defined soley by their worst supporters, nor even by their biggest campaign gaffes. Instead, one has to look for real, substantiated patterns, actual policy and voting records.
And at this point, no matter what, a Democrat will be better than Republican in the White House. I wish Salon wrote more about that, and the abuses of the current occupant, instead of trolling the readership.