Letters to the Editor
Saleem
Published Letters: 29 Editor's Choice: 4
-
Jeez, what a surprise
[Read the article: No peace for Obama on Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... that a position that is only slightly more nuanced than Bush/McCain's "bomb all enemies of Israel at the slightest provocation" is roundly attacked by the right wing as weak on Israeli security.
Why don't they just come right out and call Obama an anti-Semite? Isn't that the one-size-fits-all criticism leveled at anyone who disagrees on Israel? Why keep the gloves off now?
-
You, sir, are deluded.
[Read the article: The Obama show lands in Israel]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"If they [the Obama administration] want to show compassion to the Palestinians, which could give America more credit across the Middle East and elsewhere abroad, they risk the usual long and frustrating path."
Oh, please. Are you really suggesting that the long, meandering and painful path towards peace in Israel/Palestine is due to too much American compassion for the Palestinians?
If so, then you are as deluded as... as... as GW Bush in an "intelligence" briefing by D. Cheney.
Why is Salon publishing this rubbish?
-
No comments, please
[Read the article: Ask the Pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Back on July 25, this column included a brief item about the safety record of Qantas, the kangaroo-tailed national airline of Australia. That same day, as fate would have it, a Qantas 747 en route from Hong Kong to Melbourne suffered an in-flight decompression, forcing the crew to make an emergency landing in the Philippines."
Mr. Smith, kindly refrain from commenting on airline safety records on the days that I plan to fly.
-
Have a beer!
[Read the article: Making a mockery of 9/11]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, I'm sorry, Joan, but it IS the majority of people in this country who let their vote be swayed by whether the candidate is the kind of person they'd like to have a beer with. OK, maybe they're not quite the majority, but there are enough people out there like that (I've talked to many of them myself) that they have a huge influence on elections - especially since the Republicans have learned to play to these peoples' fears so effectively.
We get what we deserve. Personally, I know I'm not qualified to be President, and I want my president to be much more knowledgeable and insightful about economics and foreign affairs than I am. I want him to be brilliantly, arrogantly smart, and I don't ever want to have a beer with him. But I'm in the minority, and I'm starting to shudder about the next four years of McCain/Palin administration.
-
@Fennel-and-Dill (or whatever the herbs were)
[Read the article: The Sarah Palin pity party]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is Salon obsessed with Sarah Palin?
Come on, she could be our next vice president. Look what 8 years of the wrong VP have brought us. Palin's 15 minutes aren't over yet, and as long as she is McCain's running mate, she deserves to be pilloried for her shortcomings over and over and over again.
And when those shortcomings are as succinctly articulated as in this article, my response is to thank Salon and its writers for keeping the heat on Palin.
-
Biden is qualified for the job. Palin? HAHAHAHA!
[Read the article: Sarah Palin exceeds expectations -- and still loses]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After watching this debate, I am absolutely confident that Joe Biden could take over the job of President if that were required. He is knowledgeable, smart, and a capable explainer and communicator.
But Palin is a joke. All of her answers were just canned responses that she had obviously practiced beforehand - often she didn't even obliquely answer the question, she just tore off down some path that had nothing at all to do with what she was asked.
Now, more than ever, we need strong, intelligent leadership. Palin doesn't qualify.
-
We can use the electorate's gullibility, too!
[Read the article: The GOP goes back to its ugly roots]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This article is one of several on Salon.com that draws the same conclusion: that the Republican smears of Obama can't possibly work because the American people will see right through them.
Wrong. Why is it that all the ridiculous innuendo about Obama continues to wind its way through peoples' e-mail inboxes? Other articles on Salon point out that people are thinking twice about voting for Obama because they keep hearing these nasty rumors. All the Republicans have to do is continue aiding and abetting the rumor mill. Sure, right now the polls are swinging in Obama's direction, but these polls were taken before McPalin stepped up their attacks that, as Kamiya points out, are clearly designed to resonate with the nastiest of the anti-Obama rumors.
I think the only way to fight this is to wallow in the dirt right along with McPalin. Frank Rich in the NY Times called McCain's mental health and stability into question. Shouldn't the same inboxes that are now inundated with rumors of Obama's ties to terrorists also be filled with rumors of McCain's instability? And of Palin's support of armed Alaskan seccesionist groups?