Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 223 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Someone was on the Senate Intelligence Committee
[Read the article: Bill Clinton attacks Obama "fairy tale"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and that was John Edwards. With much more information (good and bad) on hand to determine his critical vote than Hillary, he still voted for the Iraq war. Last April, Senator Durbin admitted the falsity of selling the war (so Edwards knew this as well) to the American people this way:
On April 28, 2007 Sen. Dick Durbin attempted to cleanse the blood off his senate suit by admitting that as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee he had been told the opposite of what Bush was telling the Congress and the American people. But, Durbin remained silent. And, as Robert Lewis Stevenson wrote "The cruelest lies are often told in silence."
Durbin said he "couldn't believe" how the administration was giving different information to the American people than "the information we had on the Intelligence Committee." He says "I sat here on the floor of the Senate and listened to this heated debate about invading Iraq and thinking the American people are being misled. They are not being told the truth."
What did he do about it? Nothing. He kept the information secret until five years into a bloody and disastrous war. He did not fulfill his larger responsibility to stop an illegal war based on lies, deceptions and false information.
I emailed the Edwards campaign about this matter back then, with only *crickets* as a response. I really loved Edwards and his wife, but following this report with no response, this knocked them off as a choice for me. But who walks out of this issue in the firing line? Hillary.
And Obama co-sponsored a similar Kyl-Lieberman resolution (this was binding) at the same time Durbin's mea culpa came out. This bill designated the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. It's called the "Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007," But the media never mentions this. I mean, he co-sponsored it, didn't just vote for it. Again, who is in the firing line for voting for similar legislation? Hillary.
But my overall point is the media isn't doing its job in providing objective and fair coverage of positive and negative moments, Tim Grieve. So instead of snarking at someone who is rightly pointing it out (Bill Clinton), why don't you rise to the occasion and step up yourself?
Your Obama-lovefest is getting tiresome. I used to think you were a hard-hitting journalist, but when the snark is only directed at the Clinton's (on the Dem side), even at benign things like this, you need to get a grip and reassess your journalistic principles. And its not just Bill who sees it. When readers tell the media over and over to vet Obama (and I've read hundreds of posts on various publications requesting this) and the media ignores it, you're blatantly skewing the election.
-
Nice analysis Grieve...Not!
[Read the article: A "free ride" for Obama and Edwards?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm a financial analyst and it sure would be nice if I could cherry-pick incidents and then line them all up in a timeline. Real nice.
Oh, Boston Globe wrote that about Edwards that one time? Insider Mag wrote that other thing way back when that one time when noone was paying attention?
You need to go back to square one, Grieve and rewrite it. First of all, what makes up the MSM? Secondly, how many headlines providing negative and positive coverage of each candidate has there been on rolling averages throughout the campaign period?
This was a weak study but makes a good case as to why you should keep operating the way you do.
-
It was a "Transformative" moment
[Read the article: Clinton rocks the vote in the Granite State]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]for her campaign, and also for my perspective of the current times. As of earlier today, I was absolutely confounded at the conflicting messages of a media and Obama movement that was so proud of a redemption-esque finish for him in Iowa, and the pile-on/beat-down of this woman, Hillary Clinton.
How can we say we are equal opportunists and liberal, yet show so little understanding and empathy towards a woman who has worked hard for our country, been publicly humiliated by her husband and espouses progressive values? The vitriol left by progressives on the recent articles and op/eds were just disheartening.
I think Gloria Steinem was dead-on when she wrote, "But what worries me is that he [Obama] is seen as unifying by his race while she [Hillary] is seen as divisive by her sex. What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations."
Lastly, I think the press was given a firm slap on the wrist y voters for behaving badly; which was much needed.
Next op/ed piece Salon needs to write: "Mainstream Media Gone Wild" [steel drums in background]