Letters to the Editor
swilldog
Published Letters: 186 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Giving them the benefit of the doubt
[Read the article: Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's an attack ad, so I'm sure they darkened the footage overall so as to give a more "threatening" vibe to the imagery. Dark tones, dark mood, that sort of thing. It's a pretty common technique, and it seems pretty likely it was done knowingly and deliberately.
It would surprise me if their motivation on the color change was to make Obama look "blacker." I am much more troubled by the distortion of the image of his face -- but I'm again willing to be very charitable and say that they could just have been given an image of a specific size that they needed to fit into a set space in the shot. And that's verrrrry charitable, given the readily available source video.
Even giving the benefit of the doubt to the Clinton campaign both on these points, it still shines quite a light on the incompetence of her campaign. If it were truly innocent, how on earth could they allow something that shoddy, that suggestive of manipulation and race-baiting be put out there? It's not like they're on a shoestring budget.
Still, I already know the response from the Clintonistas here: Sexism, Misogyny, Rezco, Misogyny, Rezco, Canada-NAFTA, Misogyny, Sexism, Sexism, Sexism.
-
Gee, Alex...
[Read the article: What Clinton once said about tax returns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why do you hate women so much? And why aren't you talking about Rezco and NAFTAgate? And why do you hate women?
/snark
-
@ jebldmm
[Read the article: Was Obama's skin darkened for Clinton ad?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Advocate /= Surrogate
Partisan /= Surrogate
Thank you, please drive through.
-
my annual rant
[Read the article: Obama advisor Power resigns]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Democrats: Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory Since 1992.
Seriously people: Fucking Stop It. Now.
Rabid Hillary supporters: Enjoy your pyrrhic victory. Gloat and gloat and gloat until someone throws something back at you, then shout "misogyny!" or some other claptrap. Scream cheers of huzzah as your beloved chosen candidate's slash and burn campaign chews up all the goodwill left among Independents and crossover Republicans. Watch with glee as you alienate the youth vote. Giggle with delight as your candidate all but endorses John "100 Years" McCain over the other Democratic candidate. That'll show em all!
Rabid Obama supporters: Honestly, I'm one of you at this point. I've tried to be civil (with the occasional snark thrown in for good measure). Tried and tried, but these astroturf Clinton supporters have crossed the line. No mas.
If Hillary somehow manages to muscle and weasel her way into the Democratic nomination (which is what it will take, in case anyone wasn't sure), that woman will have to try very goddamn hard to convince me to vote for her. At this point, I'm strongly considering abstaining from the top of the ticket and letting McSame-as-Bush see how he does with a strongly Democratic Congress. Not that they'll fight on much of anything with the current leadership, but a guy can dream, can't he?
I am through with politics as usual, and at this point I am more than willing to cut off someone else's nose to spite my face if that's what it will take to wake up this party. We're getting played, and I for one am tired of watching it happen all over again.
Finally, to Alex, Joan, and the entire Salon staff: ENOUGH of this horserace crap. You may thing you're dutifully reporting the news, but you're not. NONE of this stuff is important. NONE OF IT. If I want horserace BS, I'll go to fucking CNN. I expect much much much more from Salon -- which was supposed founded to be a place for the exchange of ideas, not idle chatter, gossip, and gotcha politics. I am seriously considering letting my subscription lapse.
Thank you to all the folks trying to keep this civil. I wish I was still one of you, but my patience -- with Hillary and her insane "supporters," with the MSM, with Salon's political coverage -- has run dry. Mission Accomplished indeed.
-
when the horserace stuff isn't about the horserace
[Read the article: More on Clinton camp infighting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here][An editorial quibble: Please change "Mr. Obama" to "Senator Obama" out of respect for the title.]
This I find fascinating, in that it shines a light on management savvy -- a key skillset for any President. The President serves two key roles: Commander-in-Chief and Chief Executive. Both are first and foremost management tasks. And if this NYT story is by and large true -- and given that the NYT endorsed Senator Clinton and has otherwise been at worst agnostic towards her candidacy -- then it is very telling indeed.
I would be most intrigued to see if any historical analysis has been done to review and critique how Presidents who had efficient and effective campaigns fared in Office versus those whose campaigns were less well-run.
-
"but she won!" (didn't she?)
[Read the article: More on Clinton camp infighting]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]sesanders: Her campaign must be doing something right, however...she won in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island!
Actually, it's not an overly difficult task to argue that Senator Clinton won those states in spite of her campaign. She was resoundingly up in the initial polls in both OH and TX (I don't have info readily available on RI) but only managed to hang on to win the popular vote in those states. Oh, and she actually lost the delegate count in TX -- not that many Clinton "supporters" are paying that much attention to those pesky facts.
It is this very campaign mismanagement (or, at the very least the strong outward appearance of mismanagement) that makes this story newsworthy.
It's really the only horserace content worth commenting on -- granted it would be even better (and worth my subscription dollar) if this War Room feature did more analysis of these stories rather than just repeat them and let us partisans have at it in the letters section.