Letters to the Editor
softdog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 8
-
An Easy Way to Get Unstuck
[Read the article: Super stuck!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hey, how about waiting until all the states have voted?
Someone is going to have more popular votes - Michigan and Florida notwithstanding - and it still could be either one, despite the bleating from both sides. Yes, Obama and Clinton fanatics are imposing metrics now to say their horse should win, and I'm sure they'll keep saying it after it's decided.
Me, I'll be happy to back either one. I'm underwhelmed by the conservative aspects of both candidates, but a candidate who actually campaigned in every state is going to be a strong one.
It's only media types and superfans with no patience who think otherwise.
-
I'll grant you Paul is a clown.
[Read the article: I dated Cindy Sherman ...]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But this argument: "He probably didn't fully understand what he was getting into, falling in love with, not just an another individual, but a jealously guarded and controlled commodity."
That's not what he said. He said this:
both of us -- as artists and as media people too -- we were pretty angry. We kind of felt like the system kept us out. We felt a little burned, so there are definitely hints of that skepticism over what goes on in the art world.
And
If you have a partner, take care of your partner, you know?...we were trading stories about getting shafted, you know? And I said, I'm making this movie...So watch out for the place card. Be careful of who you invite. And be conscientious, because it can really bite you in the ass.
Yeah, no resentement or undertone of payback there. I'm sure he meant "getting shafted" and "bite you in the ass" in only the most loving and uncalculated ways.
If Paul was really unhappy becoming known as "the second ex to make a Cindy Sherman film" then he wouldn't have done it. I'm sure he's basking in it.
-
Joe Conason, have you read Glenn Greenwald?
[Read the article: Did Sidney Blumenthal cross the line?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, you do the lame maneuver of not linking to the actual post which made allegations so people can't check if your framing them correctly.
Here's the post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html
Here's a quote:
In one email, Blumenthal wrote: "The record on Obama's fabled 'judgement'? So how would he conduct himself in those promised summits without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Castro, and Assad? Let's look at how he did with Tony Rezko."
That reads like someone with a distinct agenda to me, Joe.
You are resorting to the same equivocation other insular media types when confronted with evidence of insider maneuvering.
You can't even admit that this behavior got close to ethical line, even if it didn't cross it.
Occasionally some of Blumenthal's friends expressed objections to the items he sent out, and I sometimes replied to him with a mocking jab myself. But those were all private exchanges. I reject the idea that I am obliged to report on my conversations, whether electronic or verbal, with a campaign aide, even on the most controversial matters.
I guess the military advisor scandal, or Judy Miller's actions don't mean that much. Except I'm sure you'd say they do. I'm sure if McCain advisor was an ex-reporter sening his colleagues links to blog posts full of propoganda, you and Salon would think there was something unsavory about it. Perhaps even if it was an Obama staffer.
Here's the thing Joe. In our current news narrative, connections and associations are an issue. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes not.
As Glenn Greenwald points out, journalists should not be allowed to exempt themselves from this issue.
If you're going to make an issue about the methods by which John McCain gets a free pass, you can't look the other way when a similar pattern appears elsewhere. This wasn't just a source, Joe - it was someone with an agenda.
If it didn't cross the line it was damn close, and you know it.
The clear assumption behind Dreier's blog post is that Blumenthal somehow endorsed the specific content of every negative story he sent out. But that assumption is logically flawed because among the items he has regularly sent out is a daily blogosphere roundup authored by Clinton staffer Peter Daou
It's not Daou's emails he's talking about, Joe, and you know that.
Blumenthal works for Clinton, the connection between action and intent is pretty clear. These emails repeated the most egregious rumors about Obama. Claiming no one was going to take them seriously doesn't mitigate that. If that was true, then why did Bluementhal include them?
He had an agenda, and nothing you can write will change that. And I'm wondering why you feel the need to deny it. That's the big queston.
-
A sexist pig is still sexist if he's praising - Double Standard!
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's big, brass ... fortitude]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan Walsh has written about how the sexism exposed by this campaign has been appalling and unacceptable. Yet her double standard is appalling.
Supporters of Clinton use directly sexist language, and suddenly she equivocates and splits hairs and doesn't even mention them by name.
Paul Gipson's coment was about sex organs. Gov. Mike Easley's comment used a homophobic slur and was an attack on Obama's masculinity. Keith Oblermann's offensive comment was violent and overly biased, but didn't mention gender directly (even if it was indirectly sexist).
Joan labeled Keith explicitly sexist and of high importance. With the others, suddently gender doesn't matter, "Well, on one level, of course he was...when it's wrapped in a compliment, it's harder to be harsh about it."
No Joan, you don't get to do that after all your strong proclimations. Nor do all the other people who declared everything else of utmost importance.
It's also notable that the majority of Walsh's post was about image and comments and impressions.
The actual policy issue - the gas tax - got the least amount of space and more importantly, Joan doesn't agree.
Hasn't she criticized Obama supporters for ignoring issues for images and feelings? Hasn't she said they have double standards?
Again, I don't expect her to be devoid of opinions and preferences, but as an editor and journalist, she is expected to make her arguments in good faith, not convenient dishonesty.