Letters to the Editor
Ben Sen
Published Letters: 539 Editor's Choice: 97
-
Sheehan's Naivete
[Read the article: Cindy Sheehan's wrong turn]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with Digby and you. It's not time for impeachment. The goods aren't on the table, and another failed Democratic initiative would not add to their credibility. It'll put the recent Republican drop outs right back on the bandwagon.
Sheehan's attack on Pelosi is another example of the "left" (if Pelosi can be called the left) eating it's own. It's the same desperation that has fragmented that part of the political spectrum for the last generation. Rather than identify, and practice real politics, they choose to confront and stamp their feet. I see examples of it here on Salon every day.
It is naive--about what is to be expected from an angry mother who lost her child and still can't keep from screaming. But for an entire sector of the electorate--still too pissed off to participate--or compromise--that's another matter entirely. If more of them don't grow up, (regardless of their age) history is likely to repeat itself in '08.
-
Advice to Rubes
[Read the article: If we leave Iraq, do we lose for good?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You gotta love these athiest Phd's from Yale who recommend aspiring artists to study religion, poetry and to "reclaim their originality."
Normally, I'd laugh it off, but this isn't the time, and Paglia's "advice to rubes" is offensive. Next, she will recommend the pure love of art over the degree that made her the expert, and got all those marvelous tracts published.
(Do as I say kids, don't do as I do.)
She can't help herself when it comes to the Clintons--even if her story most closely resembles theirs. (Small town girl makes waves.) I don't know what the Clinton attachment to Halliburton is, but I don't think either Bill or Hillary once ran the company or if the army who investigated them simply missed it at the time. (This has become a mainstay with opinion makers in blogland, but that doesn't make it right.)
Perhaps she thinks the private life of public figures is more important than their work, and that is what makes her say Bush hasn't committed an act that could be used for impeachment. The reason has more to do with political expediency, sad as that may sound. (See digby and Joan Walsh earlier this week) Since the Dems can't win it at present, why not wait it out, and let Republican rapaciousness supply the "winning strategy" they need in '08.
It is safe to say Gore is not running--so maybe the Gore bashing is some sort of marker among the iconoclast cognoscente that puts you "in" rather than "out." With "Democratic" allies like Paglia, the party doesn't need the Iraq war to lose the presidential in '08.
-
To the Children Who Want to Cancel their Subscriptions
[Read the article: If we leave Iraq, do we lose for good?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can't you hear yourselves?
The job of Salon, or any media that pretends to support the freedom of expression is to allow for individual opinions, and lots of them. If more of you who know better said so, the level of the discussion would be raised. (This makes more sense than the covert "grammar" police.)
Playing "take away," with your lousy subscription is a child's game. If your arguement is "the right doesn't do it" (which is accurate) unfortunately, that's still how a child thinks--and liberalism is based on the premise that freedom of expression is necessary for our form of government. That's why people have died for it.
In five or ten years, most of you will be late in the day fundies trying to get your way on their sites as well--if you aren't already. Only making a contribution so you will get attention is immature and irresponsible.
I don't agree with Camille Paglia. I think she's a fraud. If you look at my posts, you will see I made that clear right from the beginning, but the way to combat her or anybody you disagree with is not by taking your marbles and going home, but playing the game to the best of your ability.
-
Looking From the Candidates Perspective
[Read the article: Dear Readers]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's become very chic to speak of the "performance" of the candidates. The Bill and Hillary Show. The dashing Mr. Obama. That's what I don't like it. It detracts from the issues, demeans the process, and puts the "observer" in the spotlight, rather than the observed.
Maybe that's the lesson, Mr. Scherer.
That said, analyzed as a "show," the article made me aware that Obama is playing to his younger audience. Hence the "playing" with gender, and lighter, less strident, more "hip" appeal. If that's your base--you grow it.
Hillary, as the first woman who wants to be Commander in Chief in a militaristic country during an imperial era, has another problem. Were she to allow almost any aspect of herself show other than her mind--(which fortunately is formidible) there is an army of misogynists and their pretty little brainless gals out there ready to spit on her. Do you really want to know why she can't "flip flop?" That makes her wise not to give them the opportunity.
And lastly, those still willing to call themselves Democrats, as I do, I believe we make a mistake to take too seriously the machinations of the right wing hate machine. There is little if anything that can be done about them--the re-election of Bush showed that.
But what can be done is focus on our own candidates with a bit more compassion. They are in a tough spot given the coalition that gave this country Bush. If the call for solidarity and tolerance WITHIN THE PARTY is not sent out loud and clear that hate machine has proven it can win again and again and again.
-
Manipulation
[Read the article: Behind the scenes of the administration's debate on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My thought is they came up with a way to claim the surge is making a difference. The info was in a NYTIMES report that came out earlier in the week--and solves lots of problems for them. If the MSM is earning it's pay right now, it should be gathering and confirming information about the actual deaths in the country. Calling it a no-brainer isn't good enough--not given what they have shown themselves to be capable of. This is the new front line.