Letters to the Editor
Christopher1988
Published Letters: 569 Editor's Choice: 40
-
Well, it's not all about Republicans. It didn't even begin with them.
[Read the article: Media hypocrites love personality politics]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's not forget that personality politics started in force when Kennedy's good looks and well-chosen clothes won for him the debate over Richard Nixon. It's a frequently cited fact that people watching the debate felt Kennedy won, those listening on the radio thought Nixon did. If this taught politicians, and a nation, to ignore the surface and focus on content, it would have been all well and good. Sadly, it did the opposite. Indeed, the whole point of Gore Vidal's Washington D.C. was that policy based politics was being replaced by Kennedyesque (that president is clearly his target) personality politics. The well-meaning were being replaced by the well-groomed.
Furthermore, it's startlingly out of touch for Greenwald to decry "the strain of petty personality-based gossip in which the GOP has come to specialize" when this is par for the course across the political spectrum, and when Hillary is trying her best to be a tough jock beating up all the nerds in her own political party. Does he not know that Matthews himself is a Democrat?
Greenwald is making points already made by Al Franken nine years ago. As if by repeating the same ideas with plodding gravity he's contributing to the conversation.
-
Why is this childisness considered impressive?
[Read the article: Beyond Vagina-dome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Lot's of women shouting "vagina"? A bra ball?
Somehow, I don't expect Salon (or hell, even Maxim) to do any articles champion men shouting "penis" or hosting a jock strap ball. Is this childishness and reductivity (I am my genitals) any sort of step forward?
Traister comments that "many women raised to feel shame or confusion about their bodies and their sexuality." What is she talking about? Is she talking about their homosexuality, or just their sexuality in general? If the former, well I'm gay, and I don't consider my penis the essence whatever social prejudice I've encountered. If she's talking about sexuality in general, don't most young people feel uncomfortable about sex?
Shame, guilt and confusion about one's body is a female experience? Try walking down a high school hallway (or worse, being asked to stand up in class) when you suddenly have an erection.
Most people feel shame and guilt and confusion about their bodies. That's partly because of our culture, but it also has to do with the fact that we have to learn to live in our bodies, and every culture has strict rules of socialization about appropriate/inappropriate acknowledgement of our physical selves.
And surely it's obvious that the opposite of patriarchy is not democracy. It's matriarchy.
It's sad that this sort of childishness is considered "empowerment" and that this play is taken to be a step forward.
-
Benthead, you prove your own immaturity:
[Read the article: Beyond Vagina-dome]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On the national mall in Washington DC there is a grand penis. Lots of other places, too. School kids laugh when they see it because they instantly know: it's a giant penis! Which is funny.
No, they laugh because they have an immature and simplistic view of the world. Once they find out about sex, everything seems related to it. Any object longer than it is wide is a penis. The phrase "do it" relating to anything will inspire tons of giggles. Forget about telling them to "keep abreast" of a situation.
It seems you're still stuck in that, too. Everything is peepees and naughty images, and there are sex organs everywhere. Congratulations for not having escaped puberty yet.
-
What was that talk about Obama and elitism?
[Read the article: "She's not as bad as you think"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Put Clinton in an upscale suburb, surrounded by college students from elite schools like Haverford and Bryn Mawr, and the former first lady almost naturally gravitates to musing on the modern history of feminism.
'Nuff said.
-
xeroid,
[Read the article: "She's not as bad as you think"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I appreciate your post, even if I don't agree with it. The only thing that bothers me is the continued complaint that those of us voting for Obama are "demonizing" Clinton. If you look at the comments in any letters-column section on this site, I think you'll see that both Obama and Clinton supporters are capable of demonizing the opposting candidate. And I'd argue that there would be far less of it here if Salon was more even-handed in its reportage, or simply hosest about its bias.
-
Salon won't give up.
[Read the article: Obama, get ready for the "Clinton rules"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Now that it's becoming obvious that Clinton won't win the nomination, the line is "the party's over for you Obama. See how you like the harsh attacks." It's like he's being threated for winning.
The implication is that he hasn't been dealing with personality assassination from day one. That poor Hillary has suffered while Obama's had it easy. On the contrary, he's been fending of broadsides and character assassination from day one—from the diligent Hillary camp. And he's shown he can deflect it and diffuse it.
Don't worry Salon, though I know you'd love to. Obama will do just fine.
-
@libertyson
[Read the article: Obama, get ready for the "Clinton rules"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Great letter about the rules.
-
Carol H
[Read the article: Obama, get ready for the "Clinton rules"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It didn't take long for "all the Obama supporters to flock here" because most people reading the articles on this site support Obama. I know that troubles the writers and editors. Maybe it troubles you, too. We aren't doing as we're told. We "Obamabots" are suprisingly unwilling to let anyone tell us how to think.
Do you really want us to go away? Do you really want Salon's letter-columns filled only with Hillary supporters? There'd be, at most, five people making any comments. And with so few hits, the magazine would lose ad revenue and go under. Because most people have chosen to support Obama.
-
Why the continuing deception?
[Read the article: Will Obama's debate stumble hurt him?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why is the article not titled "Will Obama and Hillary's Stumbles Hurt Both of Them?" If the point is really what the byline suggests, an examaination of both coandidates missed opportunities, why is Obama singled out for failure in the title? And how odd that when ABC has been skewered all over the place for its lousy coverage and personaity-issue driven questions—even causing George Stephanopoulos to come out in defense of himself against a tirade of criticism—Walsh puts the emphasis on Obama dropping the ball, not ABC. Indeed, she barely seems concerned or critical about the tone of questioning at all. Once again, Salon pretends objectivity while seeking every opportunity to single out Obama for attack.