Letters to the Editor
Dmagnificent
Published Letters: 124 Editor's Choice: 6
-
The "interview" was worse than the article
[Read the article: Vanity Fair piece about Bill Clinton sparks controversy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]After hearing all the talk about the Vanity Fair article, I went there and read the whole thing myself. I found it to be a balanced article that focused primarily on Bill Clinton's choices and the appearance that they give.
The Vanity Fair article was centered on clear, discernable facts. The focus was with whom Clinton was running these days. His tax returns tie him clearly to some of these people so these facts are not in dispute. The article talks about the perceptions that Clinton has created, even among his friends, with some of his associations. It doesn't level any charges against Clinton, it discusses the fact that hanging out with known womanizers and unscrupulous businessmen has caused some people to speculate about whether he is keeping his nose clean, so to speak.
As for the timing, the issue is set to come out after the primary season wraps up today. It only appeared on the web after the nomination was all but decided. It would be pretty stupid timing for a "hatchet job."
As for Clinton's response, he actually played straight to one of the original article's speculations, that he has grown increasingly angry in recent years. The reporter should be fired for such a clear ethical breach. She should certainly never be issued a press pass by anyone. IF the article was a "hatchet job", then Clinton calling the author a "scumbag" is not a big deal. The big deal for me was that Clinton called the man a scumbag, but admitted that he had not read the article. To me, that just reinforces the notion raised in the VF article that he is more angry and making mistakes by responding angrily and/or hastily off the cuff.
The VF article stressed how smart Clinton is. The author said that whether Clinton was doing anything wrong now or not, he should know better than to make some of the choices he has made since leaving office. He is too smart to make things so easy for the other side and that has always been a flaw of his. The impeachment saga was a sad point in American history, but Clinton didn't exactly make it hard for Starr and company.
Attacking a reporter for an article that you haven't read is also something that Clinton is smart enough to know better than to do. His wife is now trying to negotiate (or extort depending on how you view it) a VP slot. Making off the cuff remarks that remind Obama of all the other ill-advised comments he made this primary season is much more damaging to Hillary than the Vanity Fair article.
-
Graceless
[Read the article: Clinton wins!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary Clinton proved tonight that this has never been about anything except her own over-inflated ego. The DNC has set the bar at 2118 and Obama is well beyond that mark now. He has crossed the finish line. He has won. It is undeniable. If the superdelegates were idiotic enough to switch in the numbers that Hillary would need to be the nominee, it would spell the end of the Democratic Party. Hillary lost.
Tonight should have been about the first step to unifying the party. By the time Clinton spoke, Obama had picked up enough pledged delegates from SD to be the nominee. She refused to admit that it happened. She continued to stir up her more easily confused supporters with false claims. She continued her push to divide the Party.
Barrack gave one hell of a speech. He was gracious to Clinton. He praised Clinton for her campaign and for all the things that she has fought for years. He also politely, but in no uncertain terms, claimed his rightful place as the Democratic nominee and then turned to McCain. His praise for McCain's years of service was as sincere as his criticisms of McCain's policy decisions. He hit his stride when he said that he respected McCain's many accomplishments "even if he doesn't respect mine."
For the "Dream Ticket" dreamers, there were clues tonight. Hillary did NOT make any attempt at party unification. It isn't exactly a strong pitch for the #2 slot to refuse to admit that the #1 guy won. Obama, though gracious in his comments towards Clinton, may have dropped a hint himself. At one point in his speech, he stated quite clearly that his campaign would NOT be engaging in personal attacks. While he was referencing the Republican races of the last 20 years, it could also be read as an early warning to those dreaming of Hillary in the VP slot.
It is finally over. Once the party leaders make clear to Hillary that it is over and she finaly bows out, will we have seen the last of KateTex and lolcait and the other Republican agitators here? I am guessing that they will have their jobs through November. The fun part is trying to be the first to figure out what his/her/their new names are, as they obviously can't continue to pretend to be pro-Clinton to stir up trouble and division.
-
myiq2xu and gala
[Read the article: Clinton wins!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow, that was a horribly racist post from gala11. Are you a friend of Geraldine Ferraro? "Special treatment" "Privilege at the expense of others" These are the phrases of the world's David Dukes. Just admit that you are a Republican, I am sure the independents don't want your racist nonsense either.
And Hillary did not win the popular vote, silly myiq2xu. At first I thought you were one those silly Clinton agitators repeating her lies with mindless glee. Then I translated your name. Now I feel sorry for you.
myiq2xu- My IQ 2 times u
U is the 21st letter. 2 time 21 is 42. The IQ of 42 certainly explains the confusion and makes it entirely forgivable. However, it doesn't make the assertion that she won the popular vote right.