Letters to the Editor
Mike LeP
Published Letters: 399 Editor's Choice: 6
-
Typical Joan Walsh column ...
[Read the article: Oh no they didn't]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]She tries so hard to be even-handed but still can't help but slip this chestnut in:
I also can't help hoping that Obama supporters who denied Clinton faced sexism, but who are now outraged by the treatment of Michelle Obama, will have new insight into the dynamics of American media and politics, and new compassion for Clinton.
Joan, I'm sure there are some Obama supporters out there who denied that Clinton faced sexism but you're talking about an incredibly small minority - probably the same % of Clinton supporters who believe Obama wouldn't be where he is if it weren't for the huge racial benefit of not being (entirely) white.
What irked some fair-minded Obama supporters about Clinton and her surrogates was their deliberate attempt to chalk ALL criticism of Hillary up to sexism. There are folks out there who honestly believe this is the reason she lost the nomination! Your little backhanded post script is petty and just flat out wrong.
-
A few thoughts on the Clinton dead-enders
[Read the article: All together now]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just ignore these folks. The kind of people who are so stung by the fact that Hillary lost they threaten to back McCain are not coming back. Sure, they will invent flaming hoops that Obama could hypothetically jump through to win their support. For example, Joan Walsh's assinine suggestion that Obama have a meeting with Ferraro to ask her how he could win over other unhinged bigots. But in reality, these people have made their decision entirely on identity politics and there's nothing on earth Obama or anyone here could do to win them back. Does anyone really think Karen 22 would ever support Obama? I don't. She's exaggerating her own importance and repeatedly slamming the door on the way out. It's juvenile and pathetic.
If you don't support Obama that's super. Nobody particularly cares and he's going to win without your vote anyway, so you can stop by Salon every day of the week to tell us all how and why you won't back him, but nobody really cares.
-
Clark's comments: Half-right but tactless
[Read the article: Media mischaracterizes Clark comments, Obama backs away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wes Clark was partly right: Military service doesn't in itself quality John McCain to be president, but it is one of many possible qualifications. Where he screwed up was in saying that "getting shot down" didn't qualify McCain to be president. I thought this line was needlessly belittling of McCain's war service and made it much easier to distort what Clark actually had to say. So yes, the outrage coming from the right is feigned but Clark surely should have known better. I can't blame Obama for not wanting to be associated with the comments.
-
@ edgore and AKA Smith
[Read the article: Media mischaracterizes Clark comments, Obama backs away]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Edgore:
Point taken, but I still think Clark's comments were needlessly belittling and tactless by 1) not acknowledging that military experience usually is considered a qualification, and by 2) bothering to point out that McCain wasn't in a leadership role during wartime, as if that should matter. It wasn't a smart thing to say.
AKA Smith:
I hate to break this to you, but Barrack Obama is a politician. When associates say stupid things -- and regardless of its accuracy, Clark's comments were tactless and stupid -- politicians distance themselves from the comments. If you're disappointed in Obama now you'll be positively crushed when he's elected president in November.
-
What's really eating Bill
[Read the article: Obama, Bill Clinton connect]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm fairly convinced that Bill Clinton's problem is his incredible sense of entitlement. He's a successful, recent President and I think Bill truly believes the Democratic party owed his wife the nomination and owed him better treatment than he deserved.
What's really eating Bill is that Obama is the real deal, he'll likely win the election in November, and the Clintons will no longer be the major players in their party. The man is an incredible narcissist who can't bear the idea of being out of the spotlight.
Good riddance to the Clintons and their hillbilly psychodrama.
-
Joan Walsh: wrong again
[Read the article: Slamming Wesley Clark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wes Clark's comments were arguably true but politically stupid. I can appreciate that Clark is willing to make the case that McCain's military experience does not in and of itself qualify him to be president, but he took that one step further and actually belittled the man's service: by devaluing it on the grounds that McCain didn't lead during wartime and by failing to acknowledge that military service, while not the qualification for the presidency, actually is one of several qualifications. Clark's comments were tactless at best and easily distorted by the McCain campaign. I can't blame Obama for wanting to distance himself from them.
Really, this article like so many others by Joan Walsh is nothing but a veiled critique of Barrack Obama. First she chides him for backing away from Clark's comments -- as if either of her beloved Clintons ever did a single politically inconvenient thing in their public lives. Then she suggests Obama is obliged to take on a guy named John Avavosis because of comments he made about McCain and supposedly "unhinged" but also unquoted criticisms of Hillary Clinton.
Why? Why is Obama at all obliged to speak to criticisms or comments made by people who have no role in his campaign?
-
Tone deaf
[Read the article: Slamming Wesley Clark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The problems with Wes Clark's comments:
1. To say that "getting shot down" isn't a qualification is a thinly veiled insult. It makes light of McCain's time as a POW by suggesting it was his fault he was captured. I give Clark a bit of a pass on this one because of the way the question was phrased, but it was still tactless.
2. Clark makes it a point to say McCain was never in a military leadership position during wartime. This is true, but it also is most certainly an attack on McCain's military experience.
3. McCain's military experience is not in and of itself a qualification for the presidency, but Clark never made that distinction; he flat out said it's not a qualification. If that's true, what does it say about Obama's experience? Is Clark trying to tell me that actual combat experience is not a qualification for a wartime president, but being a community organizer is?
Clark's comments were at best, tone deaf. I'm surprised so many people would defend them.