Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 567 Editor's Choice: 40
-
I agree with Tom Payne, except for the last line of his post.
[Read the article: Hillary's bridge back to the 20th century]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Look, I come to reject Hillary, not to splash mud on her. Yes, she lied. Yes, her tactics on the campaign trail have been snarky. Yes, she killed health care for over a decade and as President won't likely have much control over passing a bill now (she's too devisive to get majority support).
But I don't care for crude shots or sex scandals. Her record is enough to dissatisfy me, and take my vote elsewhere.
And I think Obama is a great candidate with vision and ability to accomplish what he sets out to do: I can't imagine anyone in politics today, or in the past twenty years, I've been more excited about voting for.
-
---- ShawnWM
[Read the article: Hillary's bridge back to the 20th century]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My whole point is I don't want to persecute her. I just don't want to vote for her. I list my reasons for not doing so, but I don't consider that an act of "persecution." To lable it such just nonsense, and something of an act of hysteria.
On the other hand, I do consider it to be crossing the line when people insult her or bring up Bill's faults, which really don't have anything to do with hers (with the exception of his behavior on her campaign trail). That I would call persecution, and it's not something I condone.
-
Mommy Wars?
[Read the article: Marching into the mommy wars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Isn't that a bit too 1990? I don't know any working moms who fight with stay-at-home moms about which group is superior. The mothers I know (and I'd say about half the women I'm friends with are moms) realize everyone makes choices and no choice is perfect.
I wonder what the male equivalent of this book would be? But then, when men try to get in touch with their nature/choices/ideals they get attacked for being wimps. Not fair, but that seems to be the norm, even here at Salon.
-
Stewart's pretty biased himself
[Read the article: Can Stephen Colbert save America?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't heard him make fun of McCain, yet, and Obama seems pretty safe as well. Essentially, other than his love for McCain, he follows the standard Democrat talking points. Fine if you like him for taking on Bush and the Republican Party, but no sense pretending he doesn't have as much of an agenda as Rush Limbaugh. I also find his "regular guy" persona a bit of a crock, considering he went to Yale. I do agree his refusal to play ball on Crossfire was steller. I only got to see clips, but I was so glad he took a stand.
Colbert is better, his Washington Press Corps speech superb. I think his show would be funnier if there were no audience, just his straight-faced portrayal of a loud, pompous conservative talking head. Although that would run the risk of people taking him seriously. Without a braying audience, people would probably think he meant it. But even he's only good in short bits. The one-note element of the premise wears thin quickly (and it doesn't help that for anyone with a brain, Bill O'Reilly is already a self-parody).
Yes, sadly, young people do tune into these shows for their news updates. That's not a good thing. And not because they should be getting their news from CBS, but because they should be reading newspapers and political journals. Unbiased, or to the left or to the right, I don't care, but from some place where the issues can be looked at with substance. That isn't happening on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, anymore than it is on any network newscast.
-
Grrr...grudgingly admitting it...Walsh is right.
[Read the article: Americans more ready for a black president than a woman?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She's right pure and simple. Hillary has faced much more sexism than Obama has racism during this campaign. This does not mean Hillary is only losing—or even primarily losing—because she's a woman. She happens to be, in many respects, a lousy candidate. I bet a lot of people out there are like me: not even a year ago they were sure they would vote for her, but were primarily swayed by simply a better candidate (better goals, better health care proposal, greater ability to appeal to masses, which is going to be very important when dealing with Congress and trying to pass legislation) and then confirmed in their choice when they witnessed Hillary and Bill's deplorable, dirty campaign tactics. Those two went the Bush/Rove route, and that is something a lot of us will not tolerate any more.
But whereas most journalists seem too afraid of being perceived as racists to even bring up the subject of Obama's race (not saying there are no instances, just far fewer), sexism is so ingrained in our society as a natural perception, that people can make jokes and still have it come across as if it were a light matter, or a harmless bit of sarcasm, rather than as a sign that they aren't comfortable with women in power.
On this issue, Joan Walsh is right.
-
@-- dmnels
[Read the article: Can Stephen Colbert save America?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]While I'm not crazy about South Park, I give it credit for being unbiased in a way the other shows mentioned never are. South Park sees the flaws in all ideologies, in all ways of life. You're right that the aim of the satire more more often cultural than political, and it's possible the creators are actually more conservative than a lot of their viewers are comfortable with (Team America was essentially a pro-Iraq War movie, and that's probably why so many people walked away from it displeased). But everyone across the politcal spectrum comes in for a hit, and it's not on the mild, David Letterman level. The satire stings, as it should.
-
@Steve88
[Read the article: Can Stephen Colbert save America?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for the correction. I was misinformed.