Letters to the Editor
Timelagged
Published Letters: 241 Editor's Choice: 12
-
Next article will be about that, right? Right? Hello....?
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Next article: How many young men, and old men, and middle aged men, are becoming increasingly fed up with online Hillary supporting sites like Salon telling them that anything they dislike about Hillary Clinton must be because they hate women.
Good grief.
I love strong women. I celebrate and support all the wonderful strong women in my life, and that includes quite a roster. No one would ever accuse me of being sexist in any way shape or form.
I also find Hillary Clinton's campaign disgusting, pandering, and bordering on pathologically dishonest. I blame a lot of that on a man, by the way, at least until recently, and she just fired him so she probably agrees at least in part, now.
Clinton's jumping on this recent non-issue and suddenly becoming a gun-totin' fishin' hard-drinkin' salt of the earth (because most of them have $110 million tucked in with the fishing tackle) was just the latest reason to be utterly, completely, turned off by this woman. You don't have to be anti-woman to be anti-Hillary.
Don't believe me? Well, you're about to see a lot of letters from women saying roughly the same thing I'm saying. Try telling them they're sexist because they dislike opportunistic phonies.
-
This says it all
[Read the article: Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Kiss my tush, all you boys who 'dislike' Hillary.
I am bailing on this society's niceness requirement for women.
Screw you. I am SICK of you.
Did I say it? Oh, yes: SCREW YOU.
Imagine similarly abusive language flung at "all you girls" who defend Clinton, posted and passing without notice. Then you just might get a glimmer of how insanely skewed this has become.
-
Oh good grief
[Read the article: The rubes and the elites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, Obama's "remarks" didn't do anything to an existing divide, Hillary Clinton's opportunistic trumpeting of them in a twisted, skewed, Rovian way, aimed at making them seem as if there was some overall theme they represented, THIS is what raised the whole issue, at least for anyone who's buying it, which by all accounts is mostly the news media. Including Salon.
So when Bill Clinton, we now know, said that Americans were "angry" years ago, did his wife instantly start calling him condescending and an elitist?
What is a big divide in this country are those who parrot and champion this kind of invented smear politics and the huge and increasing number who are simply fed up with it, fed up with Clinton who pumps out this bilge and with sites like Salon that run with it. All under the guise of examining both sides and being farenbalanced (tm) yes, we understand.
Read Arianna Huffington's post today, for a good summary of what most people think of this kind of shameful pandering on the part of Hillary these days. Paradoxically, since the Huffington Post is where the story broke.
I swear, we're going to see another Republican in the White House and all of you who enabled Clinton in her quest to destroy the party will feel like Connecticut voters who voted for Lieberman, slowly waking up to what a disaster you've allowed to happen. Caused to happen.
No, I'm not an Obama fanatic (and I'm not a "boy" either) but he's going to be the nominee, so this insidious Rovian attempt to Swift Boat him is the last thing I need to read in --- well, I was going to say a progressive zine like Salon, but I've had it. Nothing progressive, left, non-traditional, or anything else about it, I see Salon as a Hillary campaign organ now, sliding with her farther and farther to the right.
Read the post I mentioned. It's there in the long form, better put than I can here.
-
@-- carrieboberry
[Read the article: The rubes and the elites]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you're looking for a go-getter, someone who gets down into the details and is unapologetically partisan, Clinton is your candidate.
You're right. Clinton is resolutely unapologetic for being a partisan. The problem is, she's a partisan mostly for the GOP these days, championing their policies, their tactics, and most disturbingly, even their candidate, praising and holding him up as superior to the Democratic front runner as often as she can.
It may occur to you that this is why some people think it's a tad destructive for the Democratic party and not so "okay".
-
At this point
[Read the article: Don't blame San Francisco for Obama's "Bittergate"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If I wanted to blame San Francisco for anything it would be Salon.com
I don't however want to blame San Francisco for anything. As any great city knows, our faults lie not in our tabloids, but in our crust.
-
Way too kind
[Read the article: Worst. Debate. Ever?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not entirely unsympathetic to Gibson's and Stephanopoulos' challenge. Clinton and Obama agree on most policy issues, so the hosts' task was to focus on areas of disagreement in order to create some kind of television-worthy conflict. Regrettably, that's precisely what Gibson and Stephanopoulos get paid to do.
How gentlemanly of you. "not entirely unsympathetic". "Regrettably".
Yes, I suppose we should be somewhat sympathetic to Gibson and George's "challenge", faced with their lack (and yours) of ability to discern differences between these two in fact very different candidates, they're forced by this tiresome lack of elementary skills in critical thinking to resort to tabloid smears regurgitated from things they've picked up from right wing hacks and well, tabloids.
Clinton said she will never resort to actual diplomacy in negotiating with our enemies. We can presume she still will consider meeting with our alies. She then went on to declare how different her foreign policy is from George W Bush.
Clinton declared "yes yes yes yes" when asked whether Obama can win in November. Now, I can see how this isn't newsworthy since it only undermines pretty much the entire basis for her campaign to date, and destroys her argument for staying in the race and risking destroying the front runner's chances in November.
No one noticed all of this however because the two anchor-hacks were "regrettably" (oops!) obsessed with acting like paparazzi instead of anything even remotely related to real journalism.