Letters to the Editor
Steve1us
Published Letters: 102
-
Alex, this old news is worthy but not Bosnia or Wal-Mart?
[Read the article: Michigan primary law ruled unconstitutional]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why, with all the furor and press coverage over Hillary's lies about Bosnia in recent days has not one word of it deemed fit to put in War Room but this non-story from two days ago is? Orders from above? With all the coverage you guys have given to the Wright "story" surely a new poll showing that the "uproar" not only didn't hurt Obama, but Hillary's negatives have gone way up is worth a mention, right?
"Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducts the Journal/NBC polls with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, called the latest poll a "myth-buster" that showed the pastor controversy is "not the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign."
For those who have found Salon to be less than a trustworthy gatekeeper with their biased coverage, here is the full story:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657171729866843.html?mod=politics_primary_hs
-
Second-rate senator is news but not burgeoning story about Wal-Mart ansd Hillary
[Read the article: The return of Joementum]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The rest of the media is all over the Shank story and how Wal-Mart sued this disabled former worker who is now in a rest home. Some have connected the dots between Hillary, her refusal to release her tax returns and her ties to Wal-Mart. That might be a relevant story to post here, just as her lies about Bosnia were. Guess you can't expect resonsible journalism from the Walsh-led Salon anymore. For those who want to learn about the Hillary-wal-Mart-Shank connection, here it is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/hillary-clinton-and-walm_b_93638.html
-
Clinton's negatives go up
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's a story you won't see on Salon: even after Wright and before the whole Bosnia whooper has sunk in, Hillary's negatives have gone way up: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Time for Hillary and Joan to face reality.
-
War Room posting another non-story
[Read the article: Time columnist: Gore-Obama in '08?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joe Klein is an idiot and has been shown several times to be so by Glenn Greenwald. The sad thing is Salon continues to post non-stories like this in War room while ignoring Hillary's meltdown over Bosnia or her connections to Wal-Mart:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/hillary-clinton-and
Check it out-walm_b_93638.html
-
Better late than never
[Read the article: Polls: Obama weathers Wright controversy ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Got some more catching up to, War Room, but this is a decent start. Joan must be off today.
-
Report : Joan Walsh getting instructions from Clinton's campaign
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Members of the Clinton campaign were overheard telling Salon editor Joan Walsh to keep rehashing every negative Obama story in her writings, and then finish them off with caveats like "but I don't agree" to keep at least the appearance of impartiality. Ms. Walsh then said she would continue this tactic and continue ignoring negative Clinton stories and the large number of Salon posters who are criticizing her for these tactics."
Now, as far as I know, this report may be true. It would make sense. But I'm not saying I agree with it.
-
The tide is turning into a tsunami
[Read the article: A big lead for Obama in new Gallup poll]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Even after Wright, the negatives are way up for Hillary and everyone but the Clintons and their followers like Joan Walsh can see that this thing is over. Bob Casey's endorsement, the resurgence of violence in a war that Hillary helped start and the recent revelations about her numerous falsehoods (everywhere but on Salon) are turning this into a done deal.
-
Law school debunks Clinton charges agaisnt Obama
[Read the article: A big lead for Obama in new Gallup poll]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]BTW, you won't see this on Salon, but the University of Chicago released a press release showing the Clinton campaign alleging Obama lied about his law school professorship - was itself another Clinton lie. Here is the release with caps for certain words: From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as PROFESSORS, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a PROFESSOR in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined. So now all the Obama haters and media and the Clinton campaign will immediately apologize for slandering Senator Obama, right?
-
@billcap
[Read the article: A big lead for Obama in new Gallup poll]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I wouldn't toss around descriptions like "smug condescension" when your entire post is filled with SMUG SARCASM:
"what the weather is like in that world you all inhabit."
"The gods themselves do tremble."
"I, of course, can only speak to the US, not having the direct telepathic pipeline you all do to our neighbors to the north and south."
Do they know that saying about the pot and the kettle in upstate New York?
And if the race is so close why do all the political scorekeepers, impartial people like Chuck Todd, say she has no chance to win? And how are those of who look at those REAL numbers (pledged delegates won, percentage of the popular vote Clinton would have to win in the upcoming primaries and caucuses to win the nomination) so "divorced from reality" while you are so smugly realistic? Again, this requires a little looksee into the mirror before criticizing.
-
@virtue 001
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry to be late getting back, but the source for the story was me. It was made up (just like a lot of the stuff on Fox News, which according to Joan's latest blog is now a reliable news source). I was making a satirical point about the yellow journalism currently being practiced by Ms. Walsh by bringing up topics she knows are harmful to Obama again and again and then concluding with some sort of phony "but i don't agree with it" caveat to create the appearance of impartiality. I threw in the part about "as far as I know" (Hillary words smacking o the same sort of underhanded method Walsh uses) so people would know it was satire. I enjoy your comments. Carry on.
-
@Steve Fox
[Read the article: Michelle Obama on "ignorant" America]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are absolutely wrong. The latest numbers show, by several points, that more Hillary supporters would vote for McCain if Obama were the nominee than vice versa.