Letters to the Editor
-
Joan has something positive to say about Hillary!
Great! I knew you'd find something to talk about now that the Wright kerfuffle is dying down again. We can all move on now, no journalism to be seen here.
By the way, are you on Blumenthal's best buds email list also?
Just wondering.
-
Testicular Fortitude
Hillary will even grow testes to win this campaign. I thought the comment was sexist. I was offended by it. It showed she will stoop to any lengths for a vote.
-
Hillary Clinton
Watching Hillary, I am don't see her as the first woman President, I just see another opportunistic politician who will do anything, say anything to get elected. I can't imagine Margaret Thatcher performing like this. I find her distateful and I find her husband distasteful. I am gender neutral.
-
Joan is Pro Hillary
So, Joan thinks Hillary has gonads. None of us ever doubted that woman had guts. Balls is a terrible word.
And, now can we have a headline from Joan that is biased about Hillary? How about a NASCAR type sicker for Joan that says: Sponsored by Clinton for President.
-
Joan Walsh refuses to disclose her pro-Clinton bias
What's up with that, Joan? Is there some internal rule you'd be breaking by being honest with your readers?
Your behavior is absolutely bizarre and senseless. Just admit you're pulling for Clinton. How hard is that?
-
Possible terms besides "testicular fortitude"
-- "Fallopian fortitude"
-- "Ovarian vigor"
-- "Uteran undauntedness"
-- "Vaginal valiance"
-- "Estrogenous intrepidness"
-- "Cervical sturdiness"
Sigh. Some people will think those terms are sexist.
I think all the feminists of Salon should decide once and for all whether genitalia-based references are acceptable or sexist.
Joan Walsh has been first in line to point out sexism against Hillary Clinton. But she also uses terms like "man up," merrily says Clinton is a ballbuster, and so on. The SNL gals made jokes about "bitch is the new black" and so on.
Is it simply one of those rules where if women use a term in a complimentary manner about other women, it's okay; but if anyone uses a term in a critical manner about a woman, it's sexist? (That seems to be the rule for certain expressions toward minorities as well.)
Anyway, this blog compelled me to search for Hillary's performance on the Bill O'Reilly show. I found it on YouTube, in 2 parts. Hillary Clinton did okay, though she pulled some of her typical crap. O'Reilly asked her what she thought of Rev. Wright, and she said, "I leave that for the voters to decide." Huh? Voters to decide what? Is Wright running for office?
Salon has been silent about the Clinton campaign story in which she cited a factory that had been shut down and moved to China under Bush's presidency -- a move that, it turns out, was approved by the Clinton administration. Will Salon ever mention this, or will it be avoided like the Bosnia sniper story and the Geraldine Ferraro uproar were avoided?
I dunno. Joan Walsh, I like the background in your video this time. Sort of diagonal and reflective. Better than the brick wall. Nice job. I am tired. I get angry at Salon, then I feel like a jerk, then I type too much more, then......I sigh.
-
What's the Coy Word for Obliteration?
Joan, how coy. If you prefer "testicular fortitude" for balls, I wonder what you tell yourself about Clinton's statement that she would "obliterate Iran" if they were to attack Israel.
Is this the kind of balls you like in your president?
-
It's a load of bollocks
Who cares? We've had going on eight years of Saturnalian misrule, oil having gone from $20 to $120/bbl, 4000 dead and tens of thousands of wounded Americans, not to mention a good half-million additional dead Iraqis, -- and we're talking about whether or not a candidate responded correctly to a (perhaps inept) comment?
Maybe you still enjoy making catty remarks about those excluded from your clique, but as I read this, I started to hear Kurt Cobain groaning, "you're in highschoolagain..."
-
Hey Joan-
Did you read Glenn Greenwald's column today? Did you see yourself in it's mirror?
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/05/04/1988/
-
Please explain to us some scenario where Mrs. Clinton can possibly win.
I guess it's become clear over the last week or two that you're a strong supporter of Mrs. Clinton. That's fine, although you should stop pretending that you're in any way unbiased.
However, it seems to me and a lot of other somewhat less partisan observers that there is no plausible scenario that results in Mrs. Clinton winning over Mr. Obama. Unless you can detail some real possibility for Mrs. Clinton's victory, you are simply wasting your breath and our time and patience.
I should add that gonads (the gender-neutral expression for cojones that you're looking for) should be extremely low on your scale for rating candidates. All the candidates have that sort of aggression in spades compared to your average guy. I'm more interested in rationality, competence, coolness under fire.
The fact that you can talk about things like the "gas tax holiday", one of the stupidest damn ideas ever proposed, one which will simply help confirm your average USAian's addiction to fossil fuels while draining the already-looted Treasury just a little more, and only see Mrs. Clinton's "fortitude" makes me think that you've lost the plot pretty badly.
Please. Stop shooting us in the foot. Take a little time off and think: "Is there really a way that Mrs. Clinton can win? If not, surely I should be putting my weight behind the final Democratic party choice because more than anything else we need to avoid four more years of Republican mismanagement?"