Letters to the Editor
xufapemu
Published Letters: 406 Editor's Choice: 7
-
I keep thinking of more reasons for Clark as VP
[Read the article: Clark: "What does John McCain really believe?"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hopefully this is it.
Although he was a solid Clinton supporter, he never once attacked Obama. All of Clark's campaigning was in the form of praise for Hillary. He never attempted to diminish Obama.
-
Couldn't help but notice Clark wasn't in the list of VP
[Read the article: Why Obama should pick Hillary Clinton as veep]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]candidates who isn't worthy.
Regardless how much time goes by, Obama simpy can't put Hillary on the ticket.
It makes him look too weak, her people simply pushed too hard and over-played their hand. If they wanted to force Obama to keep Clinton off the ticket, they did a great job.
Clark is by for the best VP candidate. His resume is impeccable. The vetting process would be painless. He's can slam McCain on military matters, he was against the war and endorsed Clinton early on but never attacked Obama.
-
Is this the new Salon business model?
[Read the article: MoveOn closes its 527 for good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Keep alienating progressive subscribers?
I know it must be difficult for Clinton supporters who write for Salon to switch gears. This is Salon's "War Room".
And what are the majority of articles? Articles critical of Moveon and Obama.
The author is tin-eared to the bias in his reporting because moveon was critical of Mrs. Clinton and Obama, well, Obama had the audacity to run against her.
My suggestion; if Salon expects to remain an ongoing concern. Get writers on board who will be a little more critical of the DLC and the Republicans as the are progressives.
It may not be fair and balanced, but how long do you suppose progressives will pay to be annoyed?
Does anyone think progressives subscribe to Salon for the top notch reporting? We may have at one time (when the reporting was good), but anymore its loyalty for a progressive media outlet. Take that away, and exactly WHAT does Salon have going for it? It won't surprise me a bit to find in the near future that Salon will fold. How in the hell will Joan get on Harball then?
-
@ sajwan
[Read the article: MoveOn closes its 527 for good]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article was critical of Moveon, not Obama.
By the way, moveon was the group founded to fight against the slime hurled at Bill Clinton. Hence the name moveon.
They fight for progressive causes in a way that should be applauded by Democrats, not derided.
Ah, but they were too critical of Mrs. Clinton and for her supporters THAT is an inforgiveable sin that places them on the "enemies list".
Most progressives support Obama because of his opposition to the war. Not because of his last name, his race, his gender, or that it was his turn.
There are no turns for the Presidency and there is no resume that automatically makes anyone more prepared.
Clinton lost. Its time to move on.
-
I've read and re-read Obama's statement
[Read the article: Obama says he supports FISA compromise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and I wonder if some of the posters here just read Koppleman's headline or if they read the statement.
The compromise ends illegal wiretaps and brings back court protections. Since this is a House bill, there's little Obama can do about retroactive immunity until it reaches the Senate; and he'll work to strip immunity from the final bill.
In the meantime, the Executive will immediately suspend illegal wiretaps. If this can be pushed back in the Senate until after the election because of the immunity, Obama can kill it when he's President and there will probably be a wider Dem majority in the Senate to avoid Lieberman casting a deciding vote.
You people are complete idiots. Do we want to end the Bush's illegal operations or just play games?
-
@ Amity
[Read the article: Obama says he supports FISA compromise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It just seems like a kneejerk reaction to the headline.
FISA is a good thing. It's what we want to get back to. We want to be able to investigate possible terrorist but we also want court protections to keep Bush from spying on political enemies.
Obama DOES NOT SUPPORT Telecomm immunity. But, there is little he can do until the bill reaches the SENATE, since he is a SENATOR.
So can anyone who's posting that Obama has 'betrayed' them, please point out the parts of his statement that betrayed you.
Sheesh, no wonder Democrats always lose. We're are own worse enemies.
-
@ timbuktom
[Read the article: Obama says he supports FISA compromise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.
Yeah, you're right. That's WAYY too much parsing.
I could hardly understand it. /snark
-
Again, could any poster
[Read the article: Obama says he supports FISA compromise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]please quote from Obama's statement the part that you disagree with.
Republicans folded on EVERYTHING but the Telcomm immunity, and Obama will vote to strip that from the final bill.
You people are amazing.
-
@ chris7crows
[Read the article: Obama says he supports FISA compromise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't think you've read the bill.
If you have, please report the parts of the bill that allows any private company is allowed to break the law as long as the President says that it's okay to do so, and no investigation can be made into their subsequent lawbreaking.
Otherwise, I call bullshit.
-
@ had_enough
[Read the article: Obama says he supports FISA compromise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're right, Obama could strip the Telecomm immunity and it'll go back to the House. By the time it comes for a vote again, the election will be over.
I may not be smart enough to know all of the angles, but why did the House block making the surveillance law permanent back in Feb? Wouldn't you think they'd try to CYA back then if that is their reasoning today?
It looks to me that they accepted the compromise to clear this from the aganda until after the election.
But like I said, I'm not all that smart and may not understand the overwhelming unity of the House Democrats to protect their leadership at the expense of re-election.
-
@ chris7crows
[Read the article: Obama says he supports FISA compromise]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Riiight.
And that's the provisions that Obama says he's against and will work to strip from the final bill.
What do you think we've been arguing about here for the past hour?
-
What a joke
[Read the article: Times slams Obama on ethanol]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Politico, huffpo, MSNBC, CNN, even Fox and Drudge have big stories on McCain's advisor Black's comment that a terrorist attack will help McCain. Politico has video of McCain disavowing Black's statement.
And liberal Salon's top politcal story? Times slams Obama on ethanol
Salon really has become a bit of a parody of itself.