Letters to the Editor
Rob H.
Published Letters: 123 Editor's Choice: 30
-
You're Upset by the Creepy Tone of Violence?
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's the problem with you Hillary supporters. Keith Olbermann's tone of violence upsets you (even though he in no way meant it in that way) but actual violence is just fine.
Hillary lent her megawatt name to George Bush's war which has killed untold thousands of Iraqi women and seen them raped and subjugated like farm animals. That's not a tone of violence, Joan, that's actual, real, every day, lethal violence. And it's intellectually dishonest of both you and Rachel Sklar not to make a point of it when discussing misogyny.
You talk about the sexism Hillary Clinton faces but ignore her complicity in helping facilitate a war where women face sexism that leaves many of them dead in back alleys. I tell you, Rachel Sklar has some real moxie sitting in front of her computer. Tell her to go do something that truly requires moxie. Like get a job teaching in Iraq. Or work in a hospital. Those jobs can be a death sentence.
You sit in your ivory tower and pontificate about sexism while the candidate you support has shown utter non-chalance about the lives of Iraq's women and now Iran's. Maybe if Hillary had shown some moxie on October 11, 2002 she'd be winning this race. But she put politics and ambition ahead of what was right. And so she loses, not because of wayward remarks from Keith Olbermann, but because she embraced not a tone of violence, but real violence. People like myself would have stood up for her if she had stood up for something other than herself.
-
Joan Walsh: Intellectually Bankrupt
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not going to write a long screed as I'm done venting at Joan Walsh and her ongoing (pathetic) efforts to elect Hillary Clinton.
But maybe you would like to point out to your readers, Joan, that one of Hillary Clinton's staunchest supporters and frequent surrogate for the campaign, Governor Ed Rendell, passionately praised Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam in 1997. By your measure, that means Hillary Clinton supports Louis Farrakhan, too. Or does that somehow upset your house of cards? I mean if you're going to play the guilt by association game, which you have no trouble doing with Obama in this column, apply it evenly to Hillary.
Joan, you are intellectually bankrupt. Hillary Clinton lost all by herself. She voted for the single worst abomination in our history. She lied. She threatened to obliterate an entire country, and all you can do is continually bleat about Jeremiah Wright. The funniest thing is that in private, Hillary Clinton could care less about you or your support. If she had to throw you under the bus, she would not hesitate for a second. Just ask MoveOn.
-
Joan Walsh, Meet Erica Jong
[Read the article: Why Jeremiah Wright is so wrong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just because a man is inspired by his pastor doesn't mean he agrees with every word his pastor says. Duh. Even a moron knows that. But inspiration remains important. And you will never be inspired by running stuff out of context and playing gotcha.
Our press has become a sea of triviality, meanness and irrelevant chatter.
God knows inspiration is always welcome. Moyers and Wright gave us that on Friday night.
You are such a total lightweight, Joan. And Erica Jong just called you a moron. Guess she must be one of us sexists.
-
You Lay Down With Rush, Joan...
[Read the article: I was wrong about Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's almost impossible to take anything you write seriously since you gushed over Rush Limbaugh a few weeks back. Especially if you're going to continually lecture us on a subject where it's so ridiculously transparent where your intentions lie.
That's why no one's listening anymore to your inept attempts to tear down Barack Obama through your asinine Jeremiah Wright association games. You aren't seen as a serious voice on this issue because your coverage is so utterly skewed and ham-handed. You're a joke, Joan. Your single-minded crusade on this topic is an embarrassment to journalism and an insult to Salon's readership.
By the way, do you notice that most of your support comes from right wing trolls? Well, you lay down with Rush, Joan, you wake up with sleaze.
-
And Nary a Word About Douglas Coe, Joan?
[Read the article: Obama "outraged" by Wright]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow. You're quick, Joan. Got your post up right away. Well, I challenge you now to expend some energy and focus on Hillary Clinton's ties to Douglas Coe and The Fellowship. Or does that not matter?
It's truly sad that you've given Hillary a pass on her association with what Babara Ehrenreich rightfully called "Hillary's Nasty Pastorate." Douglas Coe and his merry band of evangelicals make Jeremiah Wright seem quaint. Unless an organization that has built relationships with some of the great thugs and killers of this century doesn't disturb you nearly as much as a black minister with some dumb ideas.
And yet, Hillary has embraced this organization and spoken glowingly of it. Did she not know the Fellowship's past history in 1993 when she joined? Perhaps she might have enlightened herself over these past 15 years.
So come on, Joan, enlighten us with your pearls of wisdom on this issue. After all, you seem very concerned with the religious affiliations of the candidates. Just not Hillary's.
Until you write truthfully about Doug Coe and the Fellowship, you'll be nothing but an intellectually bankrupt, partisan shill for both Hillary and the mainstream media. So I challenge you, Joan. Write a piece about this issue. Here's a start.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich