Letters to the Editor
-
Sorry, Salon...
...but even though I'm a loyal Salon subscriber (and blogger!), I have to agree more with the critics of this piece.
For those of us who DID vote for Gore in 2000, because we were able to see through GWB's truly phoney persona, and had read Molly Ivins' alarming, albeit entertaining, book, "Shrub:The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush," we are complaining, not just about specific, individual things that still require clarification, but because they still get repeated.
We are complaining about the patronizing attitude of the press, in general, whenever Al Gore is being discussed, as well as many of the other candidates in 2004. (I can give you examples, but I'm trying to keep this from being too long.)
I will be the first to admit that his campaign was not perfect (tho' it was, despite the press, good enough to win the popular vote), but I still must defend him by saying that the things he was most criticized for were the results of listening to the consultants. You know, those same ones who keep saying they know how to win elections, and the netroots, the bloggers, the wacky, crazed, loony far left... they know nothing. Those same consultants are still riding on Clinton's coat tails. He would likely have won without them.
What happened in Connecticut last week...? Lamont's unexpected 33% was not result of the consultants at work. THAT was the netroots, the bloggers, and that crazy bunch of far left folks, who are actually more of a mature demographic than most politicians realize.
I would like to suggest that a best-practice policy beginning immediately, at least regarding Al Gore, since so much damage was done during the 2000 campaign, would be to check and check again every fact, opinion, etc. that you write/publish about him. In this case, the internet probably won't be enough, because the misstatements are out here all over the place. Memed to death.
We've had enough.
-
AngryDem
Mine got editor's choice. Did yours? Maybe you were the only one that didn't get it. I thought it was hilarious.
Gore ya later,
Poco
-
Poco
Editor's Choice?
YAWN
Call me when you say something interesting...
ROFL
-
Simply put...
If I wanted a tired re-hash of RNC hackery, I could have gone to the source. I expect--and pay--for much better than this.
O'Hehir's reliance on RNC talking points to show he isn't "...committed to only bright and shiny coverage of our bright and shiny Democrats" is lazy and disingenuous. If, in fact, this is an O'Hehir opinion piece, then it shouldn't matter that it may sound "bright and shiny." But it apparently it does matter, so he reached for the nearest smear available. Perhaps to sound like an authentic critic?
I'm unimpressed with both the result and the defense of it.
PS: Washington, DC is in the South, in case you were wondering.
-
AngryDum says
"Call me when you say something interesting..."
What do you want me to call you?
You sign your posts ROFL, but is that your real name? Huh?
AngryDum also wrote:
"Hey genius - as a general rule, if you feel compelled to explain a joke to your audience, then it probably wasn't as funny as you thought it was in the first place."
I didn't have to explain it to the whole audience, just you.
You're just a... a... ANGRY DUMOCRAT!
Oh, and I'll just bet there are plenty of people that care what I have to say. At least as much as they care about what you have to say. To you I say, Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system. Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help! I'm being repressed!
Gore's a ninny,
Poco
-
Poco
YAWN
Nobody cares, son.
-
Swift Boat Raves
The editor who responded to me, and Mr. O'Hehir, make sure to point out that it is a "rave review."
Gore is fat, strange, boring, wonky, awkward, and not instrospective (the inevitable comparison to preznit makes this a dazzling remark). He "drones on" in his fake accent, and "your babe" wouldn't be much excited about seeing his movie (given the way she prefers airy romantic comedies, ostensibly).
With rave reviews like that...
Anyone paying attention during the 2000 campaign knows exactly the way these smears were spread and used to attack Mr. Gore. Dancing around the issue like they have no idea what we are talking about has truly brought this publication down in my estimation. (Just received my renewal notice, too, hmmm...)
I thought Salon was a No Swift Boat Zone, but I was clearly wrong.
-
I agree with AngryDem
Poco's joke was poorly phrased and made no sense.
Also, I really DON'T care what some hateful clown like Poco has to say.
As far as Andrew O'Heir goes, I think he slammed Gore uneccessarily and Salon should know better.
-
Poco is Lame
Seriously Poco. Be quiet. Nobody wants to read your sorry ramblings. Only 30 year old virgins and high school dorks quote Monty Python. Which one are you?
-
Thank You For Explaining That
I don't get HBO and don't watch much TV in general, so I didn't get your joke at first either, Poco.
While I admit it's rather clever, I think AngryDem was right - if only because it didn't make a lot of sense the way you initially phrased it. It probably would have been funnier if you had actually included the title "Deadwood" in your original post.
As it was, it left alot of folks scratching their heads.
-
Poco, en espanol
Little, as in: brain; dick; insight; humor. Grande puta, besa me culo.
-
I enjoyed the review
First, I read the review and enjoyed it. Then, because I'm not the totally secure person I like to think I am, I read the letters. Then I doubted myself and read the review again. I still like it.
As far as I can tell, a critic is supposed to give his impressions of what he sees, reads, and hears. People seem to think Andrew was unduly influenced by "MSM talking points." I think he came to these impressions all on his own. Al Gore is an intelligent guy with a fairly in-depth knowledge on what is, frankly, a peripheral topic in our culture. This could easily fall into the realm of "wonky" if you look at what the average person interprets the word "wonky" to mean instead of what Webster's says about it. People partially interpret many words, and Andrew is writing for people, not for Webster's. He watched the movie, had an impression, and wrote it down. After reading his impressions, I'm a lot more interested in seeing the documentary. Job well done.
As for the slightly put-on accent, I lived in California most my life and now live in North Carolina. I can honestly say that southern drawl always sounds put-on to me, too, whether it is real or not. Once again, it's an impression, which he shared because it makes the review a little more intersting to read and a little more honest about what he got from the film.
I do find it disturbing that many commenters will tear so hard into a person who is largely in agreement with them over an innocent mistake. I wrote a bad line of code today that didn't work as I intended, I'm glad I don't publish to you guys.
Finally, the first person to mention some irritation at phrasings is, hopefully, trying to give constructive criticism. Nine pages of it is just plain vicious. People aren't even original about what they don't like, they are just repeating the original poster's "talking points." Congratulations, you've reached a higher understanding of the inner workings of the MSM machine.