Letters to the Editor
Elephantman
Published Letters: 1312 Editor's Choice: 15
-
I am surprised that the Salon readership is so excited about this apparent dispute...
[Read the article: The race vs. gender war]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... since Clinton and Obama will become running mates in about 175 days from now. And then, they will be speaking of each other in glowing terms like "history-making... visionary... leadership America needs... blah blah blah blah blah."
Then, the Democrats will have what they have always had: a losing Presidential ticket (Clinton-Obama '08) and a jilted candidate (Edwards) who will become a world-class complainer about how he got jobbed and what his party needs to do to win the next big one.
-
Tim - dude, you need to get out more.
[Read the article: Memo to Fox: One of the horses is missing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It took me about 30 seconds to go to CNN (the Clinton News Network) and find this page, featuring the dandy color pic of the whole Democrat field. All of them. Clinton, Edwards, BarackHussainObama and Dennis Kucini- WAIT A MINUTE! CNN left Dennis Kucinich on the cutting room floor! Get me Dennis Kucinich's agent on the phone, chop-chop!
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/15/democrat.debate.ap/index.html
Tim, you're going to hop on this story right away, aren't you? CNN's manipulation of election images to eliminate Cleveland's left-wing boy mayor?
-
Here's another one from CNN...
[Read the article: Memo to Fox: One of the horses is missing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
Lest anyone accuse me of somehow cherry-picking a photo from the the Vegas Democrat debate, where Kucinich was uninvited...
-
emjem - Wrong, and wrong.
[Read the article: Memo to Fox: One of the horses is missing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you look at the saved screen shot that Tim Grieve posted, you see that the "listing" of the candidates' delegate count DOES include Ron Paul and his delegates. Both of them.
And, with regard to the photo montage, those candidates are not "listed" in an order at all; not in order of delegates, or alphabetical, or anything else as far as I can see. (Are they arranged in order of national polling? I don't know. Probably not, as far as I can tell. The safest bet is that they were arranged in no particular order at all, but were just nice representative photos.)
Sorry to burst the Fox-as-evil-empire balloon, but that's the way it is.
Now, a question for the Salon readership. Do you feel that Ron Paul would be a good choice for President? Is he a solid candidate with good ideas? Or, do you want to see Ron Paul get lots of attention for as long as it takes to weaken the GOP frontrunners and thereby lend an advantage to the liberal Democrats?
Honestly, I wonder why any of you would care about what Fox says or does. Still, I suppose I can understand, because I have some of the same feelings when the New York Times runs one profile after another of Mike Huckabee. I tend to think that Huckabee is the GOP opponent that the Times lusts for, and not because the Times would ever support Huckabee in an election for dogcatcher.
-
Yeah, indeed his middle name is "Hussein," not "Hussain," but by making that mistake I was able to correct it and turn one mention of it into two!
[Read the article: Memo to Fox: One of the horses is missing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If I had run with Barry in his younger days, I'm sure I would have known the correct spelling.
-
There is absolutely nothing worng with a party's Presidential candidate having the middle name "Hussein"! It is not illegal, immoral, or fattening!
[Read the article: Memo to Fox: One of the horses is missing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So, I resprectfully suggest that in the name of diversity and international good will in an age of increased tensions between the Muslim and Western worlds, the Democrats should quickly nominate Barack Hussein Obama as their candidate for President of the United States.
At the same time, the Democrats should take another step in eliminating name-bigotry from political campaigns and censure Iowa Senator (and failed 1988 presidential candidate) Tom Harkin, for his ad nauseum whining of the name of "George Herbert Walker Bush" in an attmept to ridicule his family and class background.
-
This is like a symphony of left-wing victimhood, isn't it?
[Read the article: Hey, wait -- that's my abortion!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The claims of "PAS victims" sounds an awful lot like reading about "victim soldiers" in the New York Times. Or, better yet, the "victims" of the "victim soldiers" as recently featured on the Times' front page.
Tell you what; just reading about all of these victims has left me traumatized. I will need a federal program to help me relocate, find a new job, and get free medical care with mental health benefits, and of course automatic voter registration.
Who will help me out of this mess? President Kucinich? President Hillary? President Obama? Maybe none of them can help me, even as Presidents.
I know, I'll get John Edwards to represent me. We'll sue somebody for the damages I've experienced.
-
The comments of all of these "leading feminists" and of many of the reader comments, are all well-considered -- that is, for a legislator deciding about abortion laws. But not for judges.
[Read the article: Roe, 35 years later]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]But I haven't seen a single comment that addressed itself properly to the Constitutional issue raised by Roe v. Wade.
Paraphrasing what Justice Thomas said about the Texas anti-sodomy law that was overturned by the narrow majority in Lawrence v Texas (upending the precedent set just a few years earlier in Bowers v. Hardwick); "I think this Texas law is an uncommonly silly law, and if I had been a Texas legislator I would not have voted for it. But I would no more deny the Texas legislature's right to enact such a law on constitutional grounds than I would require such a law."
Roe versus Wade was an uncommonly silly decision, without basis in Constitutional law, and whether you favor or oppose abortion rights, the decision has done grave harm to the American body politic.
If people find these feminists' stories compelling (and I suspect that they might), then abortion rights laws would pass in many jurisdictions without need of any contrived constitutional protection. Overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal. It would return the issue to the people for an ongoing collective, political discussion and decision. Where it is much more likely that political moderates will prevail, and courts will no longer act as abortion clerks.
-
My guess is that what Hillary is really thinking about all of this is...
[Read the article: The knives come out in South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... "after I get the nomination, and Bill and I offer the Vice Presidential nomination to Barack, the make-up sex is going to be amazing."
And no, I'm not talking about her nonexistent sex with Bill or her unmentionable sex with Huma, or any imaginary sex with Barack.
No, I'm talking about the blissful, orgasmic honeymoon that the press will bestow on a Clinton-Obama ticket. Oprah could do the whole of October on them alone, couldn't she? Which probably won't be enough to get the two of them elected.