Letters to the Editor
Steve1us
Published Letters: 102
-
@Jameka ..learn your name-calling from Joan?
[Read the article: Why John Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That's about all she and people like you are good for ... when you don't have the facts, call people names. Walsh has not been criticized for "not genuflecting to Obama" as you wrongly say, but she has been criticized on very specific matters - all of which can be proven or disproven by comparing these specific criticisms with her posts. As has been pointed out by many, and nor refuted by Ms. Walsh (that should tell you a lot) EVERY post she has written contains implied or direct criticism of Obama either by her or surrogates while going to extremes to excuse everything Hillary; every topic she chooses to write about or not (Wright numerous times, Bosnia lie not at all) seems to be based on its negative impact toward Obama. The worst thing about this is the deception she is spinning that she is somehow impartial - just admit her bias for all to see and then say OK, I'm for Hillary but I want Salon's coverage to be fair overall. Instead she puts on this false mask of impartiality; gets on CNN and lies about Salon's (non) coverage of the Hillary Bosnia lie, and makes every post seem like it was written by a Clinton team member posing as a journalist.
-
While Bosnia burns, Salon fiddles with big balls
[Read the article: Bowling for Pennsylvania]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Since Salon is back to ignoring the election as the news gets worse for Hillary, here's something to consider about her eroding support due to the Bosnia scandal (which Salon continues to ignore):
From the WSJ:
Everhart Flenory, 67, a retired steelworker in New Kensington, Pa., said he used to be a Clinton supporter but plans to vote for Sen. Obama in the state's April 22 primary. "I've lost all my love for the Clintons," Mr. Flenory says. "Why'd she have to lie?"
This Bosnia lie of Hillary's (sorry only Joan Walsh is swallowing and regurgitating the line that she "misspoke") continues to have legs, based on past Hillary lies and the perception of most people that the Clintons are not trustworthy. You can say Flenory is just one person, but today a poll showed Obama just five points behind in Penn. Not a coincidence, I think. This time, Hillary might really be running for cover.
-
@electrorobot
[Read the article: Hillary's bridge back to the 20th century]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Your posts are well ... robotic. Sarcasm can only carry you so far and yours has gone way past predictable to tiresome, even for a robot.
-
a little off .. libertyson
[Read the article: Richardson said Obama can't beat McCain?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wish Obama could take Ohio and North Dakota but that isn't likely, while Colorado, Nevada and Virginia are iffy. I think he should forget about Ohio and Florida and concentrate on Penn. That with another state will do it. If McCain does as badly as he is giving hints of doing in the general it could be a landslide in the popular vote, not so much in the electoral.
-
Alex, this line pretty much sums up War Room:
[Read the article: Would you vote for a smoker?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Now, I know what many of you are probably thinking -- what an insignificant issue, what a silly thing for anyone to focus on when determining a presidential candidate."
Every Obama "issue" you and Joan choose to focus on fits that description.
-
Worst Obama bashing yet from Salon .. and that' s saying something
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If you think Salon couldn't get any worse with the pro-Hillary, Obama-bashing yellow journalism practiced by Joan and War Room now this crap:
"blogospheric ranting about Clinton "stealing" the nomination by kidnapping superdelegates or cutting deals at a brokered convention" ... uhh, when it comes to blogospheric ranting .. pot meet kettle.
"basis of a convoluted system of proportional distribution of delegates" ... wow, a proportional allocation of votes instead of the highly democratic electoral college system that picks our President .. any intelligent person can see the ridiculous and sad irony of that "argument."
"Crucially, Team Obama doesn't want to count the votes of Michigan and Florida." Yes, it's all Obama's fault that those states "elections" aren't counting. Nothing to do with their state officials or the DNC or the fact that all of the candidates including HRC agreed they shouldn't count or that all the principled candidates took their names off the Michigan ballot ... unbelievable.
Did Joan pay extra for this drivel? I've already stopped reading her ethically challenged posts, as have many who believe in journalistic integrity, now Salon gives us this crap. What a piece of shit this site has become since she took it over.
-
Thanks we needed it too
[Read the article: Vacation, all I ever wanted]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Will Salon readers now get a vacation from the pro-Hillary bias in War Room with its postings of flimsy non-stories while ignoring items lie the Bosnia scandal and posting any and every negative Obama piece it could get its hands on? Will Benen be following Joan's orders too, or will he try to provide some badly needed journalistic balance to Salon?
-
@Stellaa you should try a new zone
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wilentz testified before Congress for Bill Clinton during the impeachment, giving testimony that the NYT said was a "gratuitously patronizing presentation." Sound familiar? Maybe you should look outside your own comfort zone.
-
The truth about Wilentz
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]For those who didn't see it, selections from this post from Niigata are worth repeating:
First things first: you misuse "vaunted" when you mean "vaulted". As a history professor myself, this strikes me as a literally sophomoric error.
I am aware from stories inside the Princeton History Department just how close to the Clintons you are, and how you get off on bragging about your connections with them, and on the trappings of presidential power you get to take part in - Bill or Hillary helicoptering in to visit, etc.
Given your own opposition to the Iraq invasion, I find your continuing support for Clinton baffling and indeed inexcusable.
You are a disgrace to your profession and to the progressive movement.
-
Penn's still there so article is pointless .. great work!
[Read the article: Cashing in on the Clinton campaign]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After yesterday's travesty with the Wilentz "column" now your main feature is a "story" about Penn's leaving - while every other media outlet is reporting he didn't really leave. Another embarrassment for Salon as it continues its downhill slide under Joan Walsh.