Letters to the Editor
BryanS
Published Letters: 365 Editor's Choice: 1
-
@ skylerdexter, johncp, indigo
[Read the article: Defending campaign, Clinton cites RFK assassination]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]skylerdexter said:
People aren't allowed to use the word "assissination" in public anymore? Because someone might hear the word, and then shoot someone?
Yet I seem to be reading the word "assassination" all over the place for the last couple of days. Even Obama supporters are using the word "assassination".
It seems odd that they are using the word "assassination", since by saying "assassination", or typing "assassination", they feel one is implicitly encouraging people to assassinate someone.
What a curious world they live in.
If you can't see the vast difference between Hillary Clinton invoking assassination during an interview at a campaign media event and those typed (or, in your case, mistyped) by internet trolls like you and me on crap messageboards like this one, you're either woefully ignorant of the power of the mainstream media, or you've got a vastly overinflated sense of our potential to influence people. We, and most Obama/Hillary supporters, are at the absolute bottom of the public opinion food chain. Hillary's at the top of it, and her words carry enormous weight. They'd carry even more weight if she wound up becoming president, so it's a good thing that someone who misspeaks so carelessly about something so serious won't ever hold that job.
- - - - -
johncp said:
Salong contributors, part of mainstream media that they are, are constantly stretching each piece of trivia against Clinton, as far as they can, to insure that Obama is not found out before he's nominatated. The evidence of wrong doing on Obama's party far outdistaces anything Hillary is doing, but our "fair and balanced" reporters are seeing to it, that we never witness that evidence.
Pro tip: If you want to be taken seriously, you should at least try to spell the name of the site right, especially if it's the first word in your response.
And I think that the vast majority of Salon readers would agree that most of the editorial coverage of the race on this site has been extremely forgiving to Hillary. Reverend Wright's comments prompted plenty of editorials from Joan Walsh, but Geraldine Ferraro's comments (which she's still making, by the way) didn't solicit so much as a peep from our fearless editor-in-chief. The calculated lie about Hillary's harrowing Bosnian sniper fire experiences was largely given a free pass, while Obama's "bitter" comments have been gleefully rehashed time and time again.
You want to claim that the MSM has been too soft on Obama? I might have agreed with you until they started showing 30-second clips of Rev. Wright every two minutes in a 24-hour loop. But Salon has never subjected Hillary's past and present gaffes to the same scrutiny as the candidate who isn't sporting a set of ovaries.
- - - -
indigo218 posted a blog entry from someone named "RiverDaughter" that claimed that Hillary Clinton is looking like a smarter and stronger candidate every day. Based on this opinion and her username, I conclude that "RiverDaughter" also believes that fairies are real, that trees have souls, and that her eight cats understand every word she says.
-
@ indigo
[Read the article: Defending campaign, Clinton cites RFK assassination]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obviously, the controversy is to blame if mention of "assassination" will prompt some nuts to do just so, have you thought about it? If you guys had just let it go, nobody would have ever known/noticed that she mentioned it.
This wasn't the first time Hillary mentioned RFK's murder in the context of the primary that she's still (sort of) competing in, against a candidate who's had Secret Service protection for the last year because of death threats against him. When the Obama campaign let it go the first time, that didn't stop her from saying it again. It's sad that Hillary's either so incapable or so unwilling to control herself that she had to be publicly shamed into doing so, but that's the kind of person we're dealing with here.
Hillary wins against McCain in most polls, that's what you guys are worried about, isn't it? Not that Obama might be assassinated just because "that witch" mentioned a historical fact.
I'm interested to see what's going to happen in the next week, when respondents have had a chance to digest Hillary's RFK gaffe. My guess is that her numbers are going to take a dive, and that Obama's are going to get a bump after her campaign has had to spend the better part of a week defending her thoughtless and insensitive remarks, instead of shrieking about how he's trying to turn Florida into Zimbabwe, and the sky is falling, and -- oh look! -- terror!
And, of course, you'd have to be some kind of a moron to believe that any poll conducted five months out from an election will yield any useful predictions about the election. Obviously you are that kind of moron, so enjoy that. But I'd also like to point out that, five months ago, your candidate had a huge lead in the delegate count and was ready to wipe her opponents off of the electoral map with a huge win on Super Tuesday. How'd that turn out for you?
Finally, why did you put "that witch" in quotes? I don't know who you're quoting. It certainly wasn't me. I understand that the last card your team has left is the "victim of misogyny" card, but you're way overplaying it.
-
And five months ago...
[Read the article: Clinton makes appeal to superdelegates]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... Hillary held a huge delegate lead and was poised to wipe her opponents off the electoral map with a huge win on Super Tuesday.
Why in god's name would we hand this woman another can't-lose election to blow?