Letters to the Editor
thatboy
Published Letters: 242 Editor's Choice: 14
-
The Lesbian Terrorist Candidate
[Read the article: More men claim sex with Craig]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now, I had heard the Hillary rumor before (thanks to Elephantman's numerous postings in other items about Craig), but what I hadn't heard was that she was rumored to be carrying on an affair with a Muslim woman.
So, Hillary isn't just possibly gay or bi, she may be fucking a potential terrorist! She may be lustfully lured into giving away top secret government info to the enemy!
Wow. Just... wow. How many Republican paranoid fantasies can be crammed into one rumor?
If Hillary is having a lesbian affair, I rather hope it's with Condi.
-
@ hotwire
[Read the article: Away in an awesome manger]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"What did Jesus, Joseph & Mary do with all the gold, frankincense, myrrh, etc. they were given?"
They hired a publicist and a ghost writer.
-
It sure would be interesting.
[Read the article: Quote of the Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course, this administration will do its best to make sure we never know.
I like Bush's phrase 'true facts.' As opposed to, say, the false facts he and his right-wing buddies constantly spoon-feed the American public?
-
It doesn't make sense
[Read the article: Administration lawyers were in on discussion of CIA tapes' destruction]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Enhanced interrogation techniques," at least according to this administration, are a good thing, right? Why would they want evidence of themselves providing this valuable service for Americans destroyed? Why not let us all see what a fine job they're doing?
-
Slackie, as usual...
[Read the article: Number of the Day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]nails it. If you're looking for an insightful post with wit and style, look for the signature of Slackie Onassis.
@dan of steele:
Granted anonymous was being snarky, but right now the 'corn farmers' are way more equal thanks to early primaries and the Electoral College. It'd be nice if we urbanites occasionally got a say in electing our representatives, don'cha think?
-
Who came in 2nd, Joan?
[Read the article: On to New Hampshire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can't bring yourself to mention his name? Couldn't think of a denigrating 'poofy coif' slur quickly enough?
So Edwards comes up from behind to beat the MSM-annointed frontrunner and on the front page of salon we get two articles on Obama (both a bit patronizing in tone), one on Huckabee, this piece on how Clinton is a fighter, and nothing on Edwards.
Wow.
So what happens, Joan, if Clinton doesn't get her expected coronation? Do you petition her to run as an 'Independent' ala Lieberman? Do you call for all of us to write in her name? Or do you just throw your support behind the Republican candidate?
-
@cestmoi123
[Read the article: Barack Obama's breakthrough victory]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"...Edwards is finished. He placed a reasonably distant second..."
Which means Clinton placed an even more distant third. Ouch.
-
Clinton-mania (literally)
[Read the article: The debate through the eyes of Clinton loyalists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]From this post:
"'The people of New Hampshire know the Clintons,' Foley said, doubting most voters would ultimately go for Obama..."
Well now, there's a paradox.
Clinton quote from this post:
"I think I am an agent of change. Having the first woman president is a huge change."
It sure would be, and a welcome one at that. But Clinton herself being an agent for any other type of change? Not if you look at her votes as a Senator. doloresflower's comment does an excellent job pointing out how ridiculous Clinton's statement is.
From amosduncan:
"For years, conventional wisdom has said that a credible woman candidate would have to be a Republican; and a tool of the power structure a la Thatcher."
Yes, this is exactly what makes Clinton a credible candidate.
From Slackie Onassis:
"No, the Cult of Clinton will march on, because my sense is that they're loyal to her not because of what she says, but because she's Clinton, because she's a woman."
This is exactly right. Whenever anyone raises doubts about Clinton, they're automatically dismissed as hating her for being a Clinton or for being a woman. This in turn indicates the only reason they favor her is because she's a Clinton and a woman. After all, if Clintonites don't care what her actual policies are, why should anyone else?
-
Oh, come ON!
[Read the article: Clinton gets emotional]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She's not bawling. She's not wracked by sobs. Her voice is barely even cracking.
She seems sincere. She seems introspective. She seems to be speaking from her heart.
Isn't this what so many were carping for her to do?
I'm no supporter of Clinton's (just read my other posts). I think she'd make a terrible president because of her policies, not her gender. I think she's exactly what this country doesn't need right now.
Nevertheless, anyone who would skewer her for this is being ridiculous.
-
John, John, John...
[Read the article: Edwards on Clinton: Not tough enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I said in a previous comment on another thread that "anyone who would skewer [Clinton] for this is being ridiculous."
As much as I support Edwards, as much as I would like to see him be our next President, the same holds true for him.
Go back to attacking Clinton on the issues, John; there's plenty of meat there. Going after her for this only makes you look petty.
-
@JT
[Read the article: On Obama, the Post ignores shades of gray]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find that too often [bipartisanship] means something along the lines of, "I'm happy to work with those I don't agree with, as long as I get exactly what I want and don't have to compromise at all."
That's only what it means when Republicans say it. When Democrats say it, it means: "I'm happy to cave to those I don't agree with. I'll give them exactly what they want and forget about my constituents and what's best for America."
-
What's My Spin?
[Read the article: Where would Clinton be without Edwards?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So the new spin is that Edwards has to drop out because he's a "spoiler" bleeding votes from Obama? I say Obama should drop out because he's bleeding votes from Edwards. Hell, maybe all three frontrunners should drop out because they're bleeding votes from Kucinich.
The whole idea of "spoilers" is absurd. If your favored candidate can't win an election that has three, four, even five contenders, maybe the problem is with your candidate and not the others.
It's bad enough our choice for the general election essentially boils down to two candidates. To say that there should only be a choice of two candidates for the primaries, especially after only two states have had their say, is galling.