Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 567 Editor's Choice: 40
-
You're welcome, weeping for brunnhilde!
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's tough week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, I don't know of an etiquette chart. I said what I said based on both my experience, and on at least one post where I remember someone saying "This isn't a chatroom, so I don't want to go on too long with this conversation." And for me it so connected to the general deportment around here that I took it in as part of my operating principle.
I enjoy quite a lot of your posts.
I also want to point out that it sometimes gets dicey to involve one's self in conversations for fear of giving a wrong impression. For instance, I'm about to move away from this site, maybe for a few minutes, maybe for the day, and if I hadn't responded to your "Thank you" it might have seemed cold. Often I don't say anything more than a quick "good post" because I worry that a sudden absence on my part will be taken as silent negative judgement.
But perhaps I'm just too sensitive!
-
@David Sugerman
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's tough week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am not telling you or Weeping at Brunnhilde to "get a blog." If either of you wants to continue to address other letter writers, do so. And when I agree with your posts, I'll likely say so. I just wanted Weeping to understand that a lack of response doesn't necessarily mean disagreement or icy silence. It can just be a result of, indeed "phone tag" so to speak, and that Salon letter columns are generally not constructed as mini-chat rooms/posting boards. This is a little less true with, say, Cary Tennis's advice column, where on-going discussions do occur, than in the political columns or story-focused articles.
-
@David Sugarman,
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's tough week]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry. Should have figured that.
-
Hilarious
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I mean, what can you say? The article didn't even have to be titled "Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Clinton." Walsh could have played it fair and square and titled her piece "Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed a candidate."
We get a pretty detailed summery of why Edwards hasn't thrown in a bid for Obama, but almost nothing about why he hasn't done so for Clinton. Walsh assures us it's there in the initial article, but she sure isn't going to repeat those dreadful words (it's back to analyzing her by way of Farhad Manjoo's recent pieces again).
It doesn't upset me. It's hard not to smile. The response to her previous op/ed was almost a blanket "present a balanced veiw of the candidates or acknowldege your support for Hillary." Walsh used to respond to readers comments. She doesn't anymore. And this is her next article?
Hillary apparantly sees herself as the captain who must go down with the ship (actually, she could have avoided the iceburg, or prepared her passengers for safe evacuation, but, you know...). Walsh is apparently the dedicated Second Mate who refuses to allow the captain to perish alone. Or is she the orchestra figuring she might as well continue to blow her horns as long as the whole campaign's going to be swallowed up by the artic waters anyway?
Hard to tell, but hard to be bothered at this point. It's just too ridiuculous.
-
@ljwalker53: Mixed Metaphors?
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Uh, actually Christopher 1988, you might want to check your metaphors here.
You could say: "Is she the orchestra figuring she might well continue to play the violins..."
Or you could say: "Is she the band figuring she might well continue to blow her horns..."
I've never known of an orchestra without a brass section, i.e. horns.
Of course the real brass she displays is the stunning ability to ignore political reality.
-
Salon's Coverage of Obama and Hillary is so laughable...
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]it makes sense the only place you can read any Hillary criticism is in the comics.
(I posted this earlier, but it has disappeared. I wonder if I forgot to hit "Publish my letter.")
-
Hillary shills funny
[Read the article: Obama: Clinton "deserves to be able to run"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All this nonsense about Obama condescending. He was asked a question, he answered it. Typically, Salon won't allow this to go without an editorial spin, so the quote comes with a long aside about how his minions are likely doing the dirty work while he plays good guy. More equal coverage for each candidate at Salon...
Interesting to see the feral Clinton supporters going after a fellow Democrat. It always looked like a good guys vs. bad guys set up when the opponant was a Republican. Now we clearly see it's just power-mongering with a childish name-calling twist.
-
@-- tregibbs
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Aiken must be a Hillary supporter. They are both in such deep denial.
-
@-- meffert
[Read the article: Obama: Clinton "deserves to be able to run"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Good response. It's strange that people who support Hillary—a candidate who wouldn't do interviews when running for a Senatorial seat (of a state she'd never live in)—would talk about ego or condesension or entitlement to "coronation" on the part of Obama.
-
LOL
[Read the article: Bowling for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A better April Fools joke than Farhad's hard-to-beat "I Google For You."
-
We Obama Supporters Quaking in Our Boots
[Read the article: Obama: Clinton "deserves to be able to run"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LOL. Yes, we're really terrified Hillary will win the nomination.
We're also secret Republicans trying to block the Democrats from easy victory. You can see us vaguely in footage of the grassy knoll. We put Pop Rocks in the Coke bottle of little Mikey from the Life cereal commerical. You read it here first, an open admission.
Hillary obviously can, and will, keep running. Because she's blind to reality, power-starved, and hugely frustrated that her one shot at the Presidency has been ruined by a superior candidate. It wasn't supposed to happen! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Too bad. But a charasmatic visionary will trump a triangulating neo-con who sells out the party to maintain office. Every time. But whoops, I said "trumps." What am I secretly implying?
Hillary-bots, get cracking on your next conspiracy (i.e., poor loser) theory.
-
Very Cool, Joan.
[Read the article: Elizabeth Edwards: "Obama was charming"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appreciate your retracting the story, and agree with Ken Erforth that you did it in a classy way.
-
Nah, I'd rather stay out of it.
[Read the article: The Obama difference]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wanted Salon to be true to itself, either not show preferential treatment or acknowledge a preference. It has chosen the former course, and that's more than fine with me. I'm happy to see the change. Salon listens to it's readers. Makes me very happy.