Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 384 Editor's Choice: 5
-
Did I miss something?
[Read the article: Stay classy, John Edwards ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm sorry, but, during the Manchester debate, didn't Senator Clinton basically accuse John Edwards of killing Natalie Sarkisyan because he failed to pass the Patients' Bill of Rights?
Didn't Jay Carson, the following day, say "the references in Senator Clinton's speeches are about people she has actually helped and changes she has actually made, not stories she's pulled from the newspaper and included in her stump," thus basically accusing Edwards of being a complete phony?
I wonder, did Senator Clinton merit an Orc award after Election Day in 2000, when she said killing Ralph Nader "might not be a bad idea?" (This is not a wing-nut Vince Fosterism...look it up.)
And how dare bring orcs into this anyway, when Clinton's been trying to Boromir her way to the White House from Day 1?
Rebecca, I don't begrudge you using your media platform to support Hillary Clinton. I'm doing the same over where I live with Barack Obama. Nevertheless, your piece is clearly overreacting due to the heat of the moment.
Edwards was maybe snippier than he should have been, just as Obama could've been nicer during the "likability" moment in the Manchester debate. But, given the obvious low-balls the Clinton camp is throwing at both of them, I can see why neither candidate is feeling all that gentlemanly when the Senator suddenly decides emotion will work better for her. (I already mentioned the Edwards side. For his part, since Iowa, Obama has had to contend with false abortion mailers and subtle invoking of Willie Hortonish drug hysteria, by way of "mandatory minimums.")
I don't know how shook up Senator Clinton was in today's much-discussed moment -- The fact that I have to think about whether it was genuine or not suggests the problem here. In the wake of Mark Penn's disastrous, poll-driven campaign thus far, it seems all too likely that Clinton's recent displays of emotion are clearly an attempt by the "White Boys" to rebrand the candidate, just before embarking on a scorched-earth negative campaign after NH that'll make the world tremble. (And, given that I worked for them for three years, I know of what I speak.)
-
White Boys.
[Read the article: Stay classy, John Edwards ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]never lose it, White boys, never chose this way.
Sorry, a bit of Duran Duran humor.
To quote from the National Journal's hotline, 12/13/06: "Sen. Hillary Clinton has dinner with tonight with several of her husband’s top political advisers – James Carville, Paul Begala, Joel Johnson and Joe Lockhart...The “White Boys” – as this group of Bill Clinton top aides informally bills itself, tongue in cheek – are unique assets for Clinton."
They tried to break us, looks like they'll try again.
-
Excellent piece.
[Read the article: Obama's double magic]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After reading the myriad other dismayingly pro-Clinton columns posted on Salon since Iowa, I've been seriously thinking of not re-upping my premium membership. But this article gives me pause (as do Stephanie Zacharek's consistently fun and thought-provoking film reviews.) It's good to see at least one writer here who's far enough removed from Clinton to see there's something happening here that could be paradigm-changing.
-
Hrm.
[Read the article: Clinton wins New Hampshire]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, that's surprising.
Even the Fox News EXIT POLL had Obama up 7.
Looks like the Bradley Effect is all too real.
-
Bleah.
[Read the article: The comeback chick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]More "in the tank" musings. So deadly sick of it. Along with all the recent "2 X Good, 1 X Bad" commentary spouted here recently, it all seems such a sick charade.
If Senator Clinton's *questionably* tearful moment really changed things, it's the most successful calculated display of emotion since John Turturro in Miller's Crossing.
I've been trying to nurture my hopeful side in this election. But all evidence seems to suggest that The Wire was right. A new day is not dawning.
-
The Elephant.
[Read the article: The comeback chick]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"And as for polls, weren't all the polls saying everyone was undecided until the last minute? What needs to be explained there?"
The exit polls (which - also - had Obama up 5, and somehow got the GOP race exactly right.)
From where I'm sitting, it all seems a dismally depressing case of the Bradley effect.
-
Ridiculous.
[Read the article: The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wonder, should I -- as a man -- rush to the defense of Biden, Richardson, Dodd, or even Edwards because the mainstream media showed them the door once Iowa was lost?
That's how politics has always worked. I was heartbroken in 2000 when the media turned on Bill Bradley. I didn't ascribe it to his being male.
-
Same Story, Different Year.
[Read the article: The witch ain't dead, and Chris Matthews is a ding-dong]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Go back to 2000, and look at the coverage George W. Bush received after losing big to John McCain in New Hampshire. It was exactly the same. Heck, go back to McCarthy beating LBJ in '68.
The point being, when a seemingly inevitable frontrunner stumbles badly, the media types pounce. It's an obvious story. That's how the political game has always been played.
Senator Clinton was never singled out because she was a woman. (Although I'm sure she's ecstatic that many women seem to think so.) She was singled out because she was the inevitability candidate, a media portrayal she had zero interest in challenging when it held up for over a year.
Speaking as a man who thought -- hoped, even, although I guess the word coming down these days is that we're not meant to hope -- we were further along than this, I find it all quite dismaying. Orc awards all around.