Letters to the Editor
Timelagged
Published Letters: 244 Editor's Choice: 12
-
I was almost, but not quite, astonished
[Read the article: A new low in Clinton bashing]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]to find on coming over to Salon that the editor is actually turning this one into something Obama did wrong, along with all the rest.
Yes, it was only an unfortunate choice of words. I agree. Her comment about hard working people, white people, not going to vote for Obama was also just an unfortunate choice of words (not least because places like Montana, which is virtually all white and polling heavily in his favor, shows it to be utter nonsense). The one about how McCain will bring experience, she will bring experience, and "Obama will bring one speech he gave" was also just an unfortunate comment. The Bosnia fabrication was unfortunate.
I agree with you on all of these. They were unfortunate, not so much intentional. They were a long, long string of really unfortunate comments, adding up to what seemed like race-baiting, Republican-praising, Obama-bashing, and recklessly tossing around ideas that would be better left untossed right now about assassination. A truly unfortunate string of comments, a truly unfortunate candidacy, a truly unfortunate whole bunch of things coming from Hillary Clinton and company.
The astonishing thing is that you look at this and conclude that she'd make a good President. Or even a good candidate. And you wonder why so many of us just wish she'd stop? I've never once said she should drop out before she wants to. I've just called for her to stop running this kind of campaign.
She continues to do so, however, which is, yes, unfortunate.
-
Well said, and once again
[Read the article: Scott McClellan on the "liberal media"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]another glaring example is right here in the space these words appear. Salon.com is seen as a bastion of "liberal" thought by many, and I hoped it would be myself. Yet recently Salon can be counted on to not only follow but virtually take the lead in the most insidious right wing smears or nonsense issues, in the cause of cheerleading a Democratic candidate.
We're on the cusp of putting forth the first African American candidate for President in this country, after having also seen the first woman seriously considered for the same. The right wing propaganda machine is getting its engines of distraction, slime, smear, and all the rest revved up to an unprecedented pitch, and the coming onslaught against the audacity of the people to make this choice will obviously be without precedent.
With virtually every large mainstream media outlet playing stenographer to this right wing White House/corporate propaganda effort, at least a few scattered unabashedly liberal or progressive news and commentary sources are desperately needed. And yet when I've turned to the pages of Salon recently, more often I can count on seeing the same right wing distraction issues not only mirrored but championed here, out of a contentious primary battle within the Democractic party. The "All-Reverend Wright Stories, All The Time" period was only the worst example, but there have been others.
My hope was that once it was widely accepted that Hillary Clinton's divisive, at times appalling campaign was over and thus this had stopped being a factor, then the influence this was exerting on Salon would lessen and the echoing of right wing anti-Obama commentary would fade. From just yesterday's editorial and TV appearence by the editor however this influence shows every sign of continuing right up to the election and perhaps beyond.
We really don't have much out there, which was the point of your article. There's Olberman on television, a little radio, and then the blogs like Kos and HuffPost and so on. An unabashedly liberal online magazine would have been an important addition, one that rejects all of the right wing talking points of the day, the distraction issues, the racial pot stirring. Sadly, Salon has shown that it isn't it.
-
Ah, good ol Salon
[Read the article: Blow-back from Clinton supporters hurting Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Rest of world: "Obama is winning the nomination and stands a good chance of winnin against Mccain"
Salon: "Obama might not get all white voters! Obama has a scary black preacher thing! Will Obama's scary blackness and preacher thing hurt him with whites in November? Flash: Some supporters of the other primary candidate are mad and say they won't vote for him five months from now! Did Obama really take the high road against all the mud slinging? Will Obama's taking the high road hurt him with supporters of other primary contenders? Does Obama have a (white__ black ___ female___ Independent___ Mccain____ Other (specificy____) problem??"
Some degree of these would be legitimate questions, yes. But Salon has become a parody, look at the recent list of articles, by this columnist but even more comically by the editor, and it's well, comical.
And by the way none, or virtually none, of Clinton supporters are accusing Obama himself of doing anything except taking the high road and winning. So their message, basically "Some Obama supporters have been mean to me or Hillary so I'm going to let/hope McCain wins in November" is the most juvenile and irresponsible thing I've ever heard in politics, and yes that's saying a lot.
Let's hope it's an insignificant emotional anomaly of sour grapes that won't have much actual effect, but if it dpes, these "feminists" would deserve the President McCain they'll help put in office. Feminism my foot.