Letters to the Editor
melthough
Published Letters: 1264 Editor's Choice: 102
-
AKA,
[Read the article: The "plagiarism" problem]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We only started disagreeing occasionally when John Edwards dropped out of the race. :) Was Clinton always your second choice? I didn't have one, unless you count Kucinich. And I still haven't decided. I think it is a mistake to watch everything as closely as I am watching, trying to decide. It only depresses me.
As for writing what one "should" be writing, I freelance (marketing copy) for a living and write poetry on the side. I've often felt furtive and guilty about how often I read and post here, but, ironically, more people end up reading my posts on Salon than anything else I write. And those of us who take care to craft good arguments and avoid calling names raise the intellectual and social standards here, and all over the Web. That is not a small thing - or, at least, no smaller than the other projects to which one might apply one's energy.
-
@Slackie
[Read the article: Calls come in for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I knew there was something I liked about you. You had the brains to get the hell out of Ohio too! (Mansfield native here, and my mom, a lifelong independent who has voted Repub for 30+ years is now torn between Obama and Clinton, just like me!)
-
ljlwalker
[Read the article: Calls come in for Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I sympathize with your distaste for name-calling. I don't like Hillbots, Obamabots, Obambi, Billary, B. Hussein Obama or the recent Hildebeast anymore than the next feminazi does. And it's sometimes tempting to call other posters names, but I refrain, and I wince when others do not extend the same courtesy.
But several of the things you call name-calling are arguably legitimate political - not personal - criticisms. And certainly not name-calling. "Triangulating," for example. I'm not going to go through your entire list, but you might want to re-think what you consider to be name-calling instead of substantive arguments.
Tom Payne has been posting offensive things here for years, so lumping him in with other "offensive" Obama supporters is questionable.
Anyone who accuses Clinton of being a lesbian or cunt is a right-wing troll, safely ignored. In fact, I think the worst name-calling on both "sides" has come from right-wing trolls, trying to drive wedges between liberal and conservative Democrats. Sadly, they have sometimes succeeded.
I have great respect for Clinton, and her campaign has disappointed me this year. If she somehow pulls through the next two months and gets the nomination, I will be happy to vote for her. But after her recent attempts at right-wing-style character assassination, I think it's pretty ironic that you would accuse Obama supporters of name-calling. I am fairly neutral, leaning toward Obama (today anyway, but it could change tomorrow...), and against name calling, but I don't judge the candidates by the way people who claim to be their supporters conduct themselves on Salon's message boards. Though I have been shocked and horrified by some of the veiled and not-so-veiled sexist comments (and it IS easier to get away with those than it is to get away with racist ones), I try to judge the candidates by their own conduct. And the one who is launching the most non-substantive attacks, in my opinion, is Clinton.
-
Juliebird,
[Read the article: A bleak outlook for Hillary Clinton]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You speak my mind. Thanks for taking time to post your thoughtful comments.
-
The question is not whether Republicans will go negative.
[Read the article: Clinton: "This campaign goes on"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That is a given. The question is how well the nominee's campaign will deal with the attacks. I think both campaigns would do a fine job of that, and that either Democrat would have an excellent chance of winning in November. I do think Obama's chances are better, but the electability game is a risky one. We got Kerry because Dean's "scream" scared Democrats into thinking the Republicans would attack him successfully, and a massive progressive groan was heard around the world. Then the Swiftboats arrived.
You can't base your vote on what the Republican will do, because they are a bunch of loose cannons.
I am sorry that HRC is being so blatantly and shamelessly shunned by the cable news people, because regardless of your choice of nominee, that is very bad form. It is not their job to decide whose campaign deserves coverage; that's how we lost Dodd, Biden, Kucinich and Edwards already, and it is not fair. She is still a perfectly viable, if not robust, candidate, and I don't think she should drop out until after March 4, if she does poorly then. My only wish for her campaign is that they stop the character attacks. They make her look bad.
-
Oh my God.
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I hope that anyone who wants to vote for a Republican over their less favored Democrat this year is reading this.
-
Anon 9:44
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I dearly wish you were right. Every morning I wake up and still cannot believe it's not a nightmare and they really haven't been tried for war crimes yet. I don't believe in capital punishment, even for war criminals, but I hope I live to see the day when Bush and Cheney are either in prison or international fugitives like the cave-dweller they should have caught and tried years ago. It is to weep.
-
Does it speak well for Southern Texas
[Read the article: The Texas Ohio NAFTA two-step]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]that they would vote based on the fact that NAFTA helped them and almost no one else?
Maybe I am too idealistic, but I think that the idea that people vote with their wallets is as simplistic as the idea that they vote with their genitals or their skin color. Viewing a vote the way economists view people's use of currency is a pretty silly game. Actually, the way people use currency is not all that well explained by economics, frankly, and I think the psychology of voting is even more elusive than the psychology of spending. Especially a presidential vote, with all its layers of remove from our control.
Still, Andrew, I would love to hear the candidates answer your brilliant question!