Letters to the Editor
juneausmog
Published Letters: 244 Editor's Choice: 11
-
Will Obama the Uniter
[Read the article: Report: Bill Clinton pushing for wife to get veep nod]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]diss Hillary? Probably. Why would Hillary, who got more of the popular vote, be worthy of being his running mate?
Anyway, this must be a slow news day, because this is just more conjecture, more of the same bullshit from the press. Opine, opine, speculate, speculate. And just move on after being proven wrong over and over.
-
the chip on the shoulders of many
[Read the article: Big weekend news]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LW's here is great. Obama is winning, almost a sure thing and yet they continue to show great vitriol, snarkiness, deny many facts and are apologists for disgusting behavior by priests that advise Obama.
Obama ran on 'judgement' which he argued HRC did not have because of the Iraq War vote. And yet his 20-year relationship with a repeat-offending church of mixing politics, reverse-racism and christianity is a non-issue and does not reflect Obama's judgement according to many of your conclusions.
In this bizarro-world of reconciling logic, Joan Walsh's even-handed opining of on-the-ground events that could hurt Obama during the general (if his supporters could admit that) is skewed as a pro-Hillary, anti-Obama screed. I suppose it would be a better pill to swallow if Joan waited to report on it after the repuglicans made it a big deal in the general while Obama scrambles to recover, but then Joan would be just another reactive bullshit journalist that tends to be the rule and not the exception in journalism these days.
I guess the awful Bush years of late has pushed the left-wing (under the new name 'progressives') to adopt an attitude of talking out of both sides of your mouth: we want to build bridges of hope and unification so that we may move forward, as long as it is only our candidate (Obama, not Hillary) and the political "compromising" is done by him and not the Clintons. And any exposure of the underbelly of Obama's message that indicates politics as usual is afoot, is decried as racist and anti-Obama.
This delusional perspective of Obama you've all adopted is similar to the Bush supporters of '00, who truly believed Bush was transformational and principled enough to take us onto a new trajectory. While Obama and Bush are canyons apart intellectually, this same perspective by their supporters is scary. When I read the LWs vitriol against Joan for reporting on this, I find us heading down the same road under a new, liberal banner. If anyone has seen the gut-wrenching HBO movie 'Recount', you must remember Jim Baker's last words: "I did it because he (Bush) is the right man for the job". I would love to get Baker's take on those words 8-years later.
If you really believe that the Democratic party is the Big Tent party, then you must accept HRC and her supporters, as well as journalists who don't slay her verbally, as fellow Democrats and progressives. Instead, you are treating them as if they are rogue counter-revolutionaries; vicious people going off the talking points and adopting our own interpretation of progressivism while simultaneously trying to smash progressive ideology.
Ironically, in doing so you adopt this authoritative strain which is so apparent in the vitriol you leave for Joan and the rest of us to read which I believe, is more threatening to real 'progressivism'. You act as if this Joan Walsh report is a very threat to progressivism, when progressivism should be about acceptance of many opinions and not reacting to them in an insecure way. But for now, you're adopting the Marxist/Maoist mentality–- which wants to purge the party of counter-revolutionaries and their thoughts.
Again, if you are a Big Tent Democrat and a progressive, then shame on you for leaving the dribble you do for all of us to read. Show some class and show your fellow progressives some respect.