Letters to the Editor

• The Fraudulency of the Democratic Party Establishment

  [Read the article: Goodbye, Mr. Bush]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Considering Hillary's gross neglect of The Constitution during the reign of our current Unitary Executive, only a fool or a liar would assert she is capable of restoring some semblance of Constitutional order, much less that she has any motivation to do so.

  From http://americanresearchgroup.com:

  A total of 64% of American voters say that President George W. Bush has abused his powers as president. Of the 64%, 14% (9% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 33% (21% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 53% (34% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office.

  A total of 70% of American voters say that Vice President Dick Cheney has abused his powers as vice president. Of the 70%, 26% (18% of all voters) say the abuses are not serious enough to warrant impeachment, 13% (9% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses, but he should not be impeached, and 61% (43% of all voters) say the abuses rise to the level of impeachable offenses and Mr. Cheney should be impeached and removed from office.

  There is no political liability inherent in pursuing impeachment hearings. Congressional Democrats aren't spineless or cowardly, contrary to the Democratic voters who mistakenly characterize them as such every single day in Salon's letters and throughout the liberal blogosphere.

  In the words of the very astute Arthur Silber (http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com), who has the temerity to speak extremely unpleasant truths The Democratic Party Faithful adamantly refuse to acknowledge:

  "...the Democrats are not going to impeach any of these criminals, barring events entirely unforeseeable at present. And they will not for one overwhelmingly significant and determinative reason: always with regard to the underlying principles, and frequently with regard to the specifics, the Democrats are implicated in every single crime with which they would charge the members of the administration. The Republicans' crimes are their crimes.

  This should not be a difficult point to understand. The historical record is compelling in its clarity, and overpowering in its length and volume. A corporatist, authoritarian state is what the ruling elites want, and it is precisely what serves their interests, Republican and Democrat alike. They know it; they count on your inability or refusal to see it.

  Like her complicit Congressional corhorts and fellow "serious" candidates, Hillary has done nothing to "restore the dignity of The Constitution." Should she win the presidency - in effect, being rewarded for ignoring The Constitution since her time as a Senator - expecting her to challenge the very system which brings her to power is nothing short of delusional.

  Sidney Blumenthal's noble platitudes and myopic assertions serve to obscure the fact that post-Constitutionalism is not a Republican phenomenon. It is the machine of the American elite. And until a social movement, or a combination thereof, emerges to challenge that machine (assuming such a dynamic is even possible anymore), it will continue manufacturing financial ruination, death and civil slavery for the rest of us.

  Permalink Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:13 AM

• If Asked, Would You Consider Accepting?

  [Read the article: The Clinton vs. Obama slugfest continues]
  [Read more letters about this article: Here]

  Joan, your enthusiasm for Hillary increasingly makes me wonder whether you would consider actually working for her in the event she wins the Democratic nomination and general election. Those two events are not foregone conclusions, but neither are they beyond the realm of possibility.

  I doubt I am the only Salon reader who is starting to think you're honing your talking head pundit chops - in part, at least - as a resume-buffer for a triumphant Hillary. Nor do I think it is out of line to ask the question, even at this early juncture, Would you consider a role in a Clinton Administration. Feel free to skip the "I have not been contacted by..." deflection, as that's not really what I'm asking.

  Since Salon is such a prominent online publication, and your editorial influence here is inarguably substantial, I think it's a reasonable question to ask: Is it possible you would accept a role, should the opportunity arise, as Hillary's Press Secretary?

  Inquiring Minds Want To Know! As editor here, you're fully capable of understanding why it's a relevant question.

  Permalink Tuesday, November 27, 2007 04:14 PM