Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 381 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Clinton is NOT progressive.
[Read the article: What you missed while watching "Ask a Ninja"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sen. Clinton's discussion of the difference between liberal and progressive was not "eloquent and concise." It was tortured and wrong. For the best, brief evidence that Clinton is nowhere near what turn-of-the-century progressives stood for, see the first paragraph of another Salon story today, the one on the new Feingold bio. A true "modern progressive" would push campaign finance reform, ethics in government, and voting reform though the heavens fall. These are hardly central tenets of the Clinton campaign, to say the least.
-
The pro-Clinton perspective rankles here.
[Read the article: Barack delivers, Hillary disappoints]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry, Joe, but this does read rather badly as a Clinton water-carrying piece. For one, Edwards isn't mentioned at all, as some other readers noted. For another, there's a lot of regurgitating of anti-Obama talking points scattered throughout the piece (he's insubtantial, he talks to neo-cons, etc.), talking points that don't really hold up. Third, there's the scapegoating of Mark Penn, which has that circular firing squad ring to it. (I can only imagine the "White Boys" -- Carville, Begala, et al -- are livid about the strategy, and are working the phones today with that exact spin on the Iowa collapse.) Indeed, the piece barely suggests what seems to be true from the numbers: Obama WON the Iowa nomination just as handily as Clinton LOST it. He fulfilled the promise Howard Dean tried to make in 2004, bringing thousands of new voters into the caucus system to back his candidacy.
What some columnists don't seem to "get" is that, just as Edwards has become the populist alternative, Obama embodies the progressivism he stands for. Rather than drone on in the denatured technocratic policy-wonk of 12-point plans (all the while securing checks from America's largest corporate donors), Obama speaks in the language of shared national purpose and a common citizenship. (The 12-point plans are there too, but he doesn't dwell on them like the Clintons do. Bill could make statistics seem exciting, but it is a *very* rare gift.) "Without vision, the people perish." Like no candidate since perhaps Bobby Kennedy, Obama is offering a vision of a progressive America, rooted in our founding ideals and our best civic impulses, that is rallying Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and -- most importantly -- formerly disgruntled and disenfranchised non-voters to his standard. This is no small thing.
In contrast, the leadership Clinton offers, before and after Mark Penn, is the same unambitious and uninspiring blend of triangulated-to-death DLC centrism practiced by her husband. Why even bother? This is not to say Bill Clinton was a bad president, not at all. Given the times he was working in and the low-down, unprincipled miscreants he was often forced to contend with, you could even say he accomplished amazing things, once he got his sea legs.
Still, we are now at a moment when the Republican party is in rout. The conservative movement which began in 1964, coalesced during the 70's and 80's, and gave us the likes of Reagan, Gingrich, and Bush has now -- at long last -- been thoroughly discredited. Our nation has paid a heavy price for this realization, in both blood and treasure. Now more than ever, it is time for Democrats to shake off the protective camouflage and step into the sunlight. Put simply, it is time for change. The old road is rapidly agin', Joe, so please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand.
-
Welcome aboard, Joan.
[Read the article: Listening to Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the inimitable words of Ben Kenobi, you've just taken your first step into a larger world.
-
What she's done, not what she says?
[Read the article: Hillary Clinton's softer side]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Oh, c'mon. I can't begrudge Joan Walsh for having her candidate and doing what she can to support her, just as I can't begrudge Salon as a whole for being so absurdly in the tank for Clinton (although, frankly, I expected better.) Still, it's extraordinarily dismaying to see Walsh, Clinton, and other members of their generation play the "words are false hope" card over and over again. The generation gap between Clinton and Obama voters is still real, and it just breaks my heart. This is the same generation who recoiled from the tested, experienced establishment candidate in 1960, despite his considerable national security credentials, and flocked to the young, hopeful standard of Camelot. This is the same generation who, buoyed by the words of Dr. King, swelled the ranks of the civil rights movement, and who -- disgusted by the continuance of a badly thought-out war overseas -- was inspired by the moving oratory and surprising crossover appeal of Robert Kennedy. Words mattered then, but now -- in typical Boomer fashion -- they want to foist their crushed hopes on we younger generations.
People -- particularly young people -- are looking for more from a progressive candidate than the type of poll-driven, over-triangulated brand of GOP-lite policy wonk Clinton has always represented. I don't think I'm in a minority believing that many of Clinton's high-level corporate donors have more to answer for about the current state of the world than Grand Theft Auto. Put aside the V-Chips and school uniforms: We are looking to dream big again.
By the way, while Senator Clinton was showing her softer side this morning (It looked like a fake campaign move to me, and I can guess its provenance -- Clinton's "White Boys" are taking over for the justifably disgraced Mark Penn), she was also distributing leaflets lying about Obama's abortion record and invoking Willie Horton-esque drug hysteria about Obama's position on mandatory minimums. There's right and there's wrong, Senator Clinton, and those were wrong.