Letters to the Editor

• @logicalresponse: Obama Didn't Reject the IDEAS, He's Just NOT Living for the PAST!!!

  [Read the article: Update: Michelle Obama disagrees with me]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  @logicalresponse... not so logical to repeat information you've "heard" without actually knowing if it's true.

  Please point out where you have seen "Obama's rejection of the ideas..." of the 60s.

  What? You can't? That's because you are just repeating Clinton campaign talking points.

  What part of this aren't people getting? Obama has NOT rejected the ideas of the 60s. Has he done anything other than support civil rights and women's rights in his entire career? The man is biracial, married to a strong, educated woman, was raised by a single mother, and worked in community organizing and civil rights himself.

  Obama is saying that investing one's entire capital in the battles of 40 years ago is not the way to deal with the battles of 2008 and beyond.

  Why are so many of you so determined to make it so black or white?

  By saying that she's invested in the 60s, shall we then say, unequivocally, that Hillary Clinton is living in the past, and is a political dinosaur who isn't prepared to face contemporary challenges because she's 40 years behind the times?

  I wouldn't say that, so why don't all of you lay off on the equally illogical trash talk on Obama.

  Permalink Friday, January 25, 2008 07:21 AM

• Hillary Came of Age in the 60s, but She Never Learned the Lessons

  [Read the article: Update: Michelle Obama disagrees with me]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  An early anonymous poster's points are WELL worth repeating.

  Clinton may have come of age in the 60s, but she didn't LEARN any of the most important lessons of the 60s.

  • WAR: Hillary lived through the Vietnam Era. WHY did she vote FOR the equally baseless Iraq War? Hillary apparently didn't learn anything from the Vietnam debacle.
  • RACIAL EQUALITY: Hillary claims to be a paragon of civil rights, but she and her ersatz "first black president" husband are conducting a dirty, race-baiting smear campaign against a man who could actually BE the REAL first black president. Apparently, they didn't learn anything from the racial equality movement except how to "code" their racial attacks and then claim they didn't mean anything racist.
  • HUMAN/CIVIL RIGHTS -- Hillary claims to have fought for civil rights, meanwhile, she has given up OUR civil rights as she voted for the original Patriot Act, and rubber-stamped many Republican initiatives that have rolled back our rights. And let's not even talk about Human Rights and the many opportunities to help the Bill and Hill had during "THEIR first 8 year administration" during when they didn't take action. Hey Hillary, the people of Bosnia are calling, they want to know what happened to your 60s radicalism when they were getting ethnic cleansed.
  • WOMEN'S RIGHTS -- This is a woman worked part of her career, but spent a large part of her career as a professional wife. Not especially progressive. She was also publicly humiliated by a philandering and arrogant/immature husband, and stayed with him -- not exactly empowered. She is now letting said arrogant/immature fellow run her campaign, and he is making her look like a puppet whose purpose is for HIM to fulfill his desire of getting himself back into the White House. This sort of behavior is EMBARRASSING to the women's movement, and makes it clear that Hillary didn't get the message that you don't live through a man, for a man, or because of a man.

  Yes, Hillary is invested in the 60s. Too bad her investment never paid off, and she's bankrupt...

  Permalink Friday, January 25, 2008 07:58 AM

• @Garry Owen -- Joan's Hillary Bias...

  [Read the article: Update: Michelle Obama disagrees with me]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  You bring this up in every thread, and in every thread, posters answer you. But apparently, you are unable to read, because you continually say "Where is this pro-Hillary bias? Show it to me or shut the fuck up."

  Well, my suggestion is that it's time for YOU to shut the fuck up with your requests for evidence of the bias, because it's been presented to you time and time again.

  All last year, it was quite easy to see Salon's Pro-Hillary leanings.

  Anyone who is rabidly pro-Hillary, however, doesn't really have the distance to be able to see clearly, because fawning coverage, to them, appears to be truthful fact. But reality time: at least until a few weeks ago, and apparently starting back up again recently, many columnists at Salon relentlessly promote Hillary at every opportunity, while offering negative or passive-aggressive coverage of Obama.

  Joan is the Editor. And as such, Joan commissioned and/or greenlighted a number of articles that exemplify Salon's bias. Keep in mind -- this is just a tiny sampling of the MANY Anti-Obama and/or Pro-Hillary articles that have been featured in Salon over the past year:

  * Colorblind: Barack Obama would be the great black hope in the next presidential race -- if he were actually black. By Debra J. Dickerson

  http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/

  * Hillary is from Mars, Obama is from Venus

  In the Democratic presidential pack, the leading man is a woman and the leading woman is a man. by Michael Scherer

  http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/07/12/obama_hillary/index.html

  * Sympathy for the devil: Leave Rev. Al alone!

  Why did unnamed Obama supporters attack Al Sharpton? He's only asking questions that need to be answered. By Debra Dickerson

  http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/19/al_sharpton/

  * And Joan herself, "Coloring In Obama"

  http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2007/03/20/obama_liberal/index.html

  And let's not forget yesterday's claim by Joan that the nasty Clinton ad lying about Obama's Reagan comments is "fair" and today's slam on Michelle Obama.

  I dare you to show me a truly POSITIVE (not a classic passive-aggressive) article from Joan about Obama. Start looking. You're not going to find it...

  Permalink Friday, January 25, 2008 08:09 AM