Letters to the Editor
captainlarab
Published Letters: 541 Editor's Choice: 41
-
A lot has to do with the substance of the postings
[Read the article: A note about War Room's reader comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Alex, I don't mean to put the blame for this on you, because these letter writers are responsible for their own actions. However, I can't help but notice that where Salon has run thoughtful stories that actually focused on the substantive issues (like when How the World Works focused on the economic theories of Obama's economic advisor Austan Goolsbee), the letters are generally civilized and thoughtful in response. But when you just slap something up in the War Room that says, "Clinton says McCain's advisor says Obama plagiarized her economic plan!!" you're just asking to get 300 letters in response that are going to look more like the Monty Python Argument Clinic than any sort of real debate. I suspect if you actually got into the weeds on these economic plans, these folks would shut up in a hurry because they don't really understand economics and couldn't comment meaningfully on the actual details.
I've been begging for weeks for someone in Salon to look at Obama's environmental platform and advisors and compare it to Clinton's, with some environmental scientists and economists subjecting both to some real scrutiny. People keep bringing up Obama's ties to the nuclear industry...so let's talk about it, instead of just batting it back and forth like a game of Pong.
-
@ AKA Smith
[Read the article: A note about War Room's reader comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You raise a valid point; a War Room posting is not a New Yorker article. But that kind of raises for me the question of, what is War Room, exactly? I thought it was mostly a political campaign-related blog, but then for a while it seems to morph into what became my daily dose of Bush vitriol (not that there's anything wrong with that). Now it seems to be "Everything Presidential Candidates Have to Say About Each Other, Plus Some Random Event in Berkeley Involving the Marine Corps." What's the overall theme here?
-
And one more consideration: "anonymous" ain't really anonymous
[Read the article: A note about War Room's reader comments]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bear in mind, folks, that to post on Salon.com you have to either be a Premium subscriber or register using a real name. So, maybe your fellow letter-writers don't know who you are, but Salon does, even when you post under "Anonymous." I learned this the hard way, when I posted something about one of Salon's contributors that he took personally. Within hours, my partner and I had both received e-mails from this individual at our work and home e-mail addresses threatening to sue me for defamation of character.
I'm not necessarily saying that Salon ratted me out. What I am saying, however, especially to any *trolls* out there, is that as far as I know Salon has not made us any promises or representations regarding when and to whom they would turn over someone's identity.
-
What Xrandadu said
[Read the article: Getting through these dark times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hear, hear! Condi's background is in US-Soviet relations. The thing that Condoleezza Rice has turned out to be a "whiz" at is managing her boss. That sets her apart from her immediate predecessor, Powell, whose State Department was pretty much in a state of open conflict with the Bush White House for his entire tenure.
What Powell did well, and which often goes unrecognized in the manistream press, are the reforms that he carried out within the Foreign Service. He brought some real leadership and management skills from the Army into the byzantine and Machiavellian world of the professional Foreign Service officers, much to their benefit. Whatever you think of Powell's UN speech, the changes he brought about within the diplomatic corps and the State Department as an institution are going to serve us well for decades to come.
That, in turn, sets *him* apart from his immediate predecessors, Madeleine Albright and Warren Christopher, particularly Albright. If you look at the Foreign Service Journals (this is a publication put out by the Foreign Service labor union, AFSA) from around 1999, you'd think that the Foreign Service was on its deathbed. Morale was extremely low, with people in the FS constantly complaining about the lack of emphasis on management and leadership, and the fact that they felt they could more easily exercise influence on foreign policy in the private sector than as Foreign Service Officers. Powell turned all that around within a year or two and pulled the State Department into the 21st century.
Indeed, Albright and Christopher in many ways exemplify the Clinton approach--eminently competent, bright and hardworking, but with no real vision. Albright's strong suit was European relations. For example, one of the major initiatives that took place during her tenure was a settlement of claims by Holocaust victims against German companies that had subjected them to forced labor. All well and good, of course, but not exactly a focus on the future.
I don't see why Samantha Power couldn't hang with this crowd. What she may lack in experience or competence she seems to more than make up for in vision. She doesn't necessarily have to be Secretary of State, either. If she's lacking in management experience, then maybe we could end up with someone like Biden as Secretary of State, or someone who has a little bit more experience dealing with the Foreign Service as an entity, and she ends up either on the National Security Council or as some sort of Special Envoy for genocide issues. She clearly has a lot to contribute to an administration, as does Parag Khanna, whom I understand also advises Obama on foreign policy.
-
Another thought on Power
[Read the article: Getting through these dark times]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Seems to me she'd be a shoe-in for US Ambassador to the UN. A bit of an improvement over John Bolton, no?
-
If you want to see what he's doing in the Senate, try his Senate website
[Read the article: "Name some of Barack Obama's legislative accomplishments ... if you can" ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Check this out:
http://obama.senate.gov/
I have to say, I'm particularly impressed by the "voting record" tab; it appears to link directly into the Thomas database. No spin; all the data is right there for you to peruse. Speaks well of his commitment to transparency.
-
It "advanced the cause of gay marriage"?
[Read the article: A gay-marriage anniversary]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Really? Try telling that to the gay and lesbian residents of Virginia, Ohio, or any of about two dozen other states that passed constitutional amendments banning any relationship remotely resembling marriage, in the backlash that followed Mayor Newsom's little publicity stunt.