Letters to the Editor
Alex Tucker
Published Letters: 160 Editor's Choice: 20
-
Liz Sidoti, kissing McCain ass here on Salon!
[Read the article: McCain gets donuts; Obama gets likened to a terrorist]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yep. Right here on Salon. Sidoti writes the tough stories on Senator McMissle. The very day she hands him a doughnut and kisses his wrinkled skull, she posts this:
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2008/04/15/D902JEP00_mccain_tough_questions/index.html
Not to worry about Ms. Sidoti's ability to keep her journalistic integrity. It's hard-hitting stories like this that prove she's not doubling as one of McCrazy's PR flacks. Honest.
-
Georgie Porgy, Clueless as Hell.
[Read the article: The fallout from the Democratic debate]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Asked why we should presume that electability, rather than issues, was the dominant concern of many Dems right now, Stephanopoulos argued that it was a frequent topic of discussion on the campaign trail."
Right. Asked by reporters, not the electorate. And why should the MSM give two flaming shits about the hoi polloi anyway, hmmm? Any evidence that they've ever done so, or are planning to start? Either Clueless George was doing his best to help Hillary get back in the game or he just enjoys suckling on Sean Hannity's teat too much.
One thing's for sure: the rest of the world can shake their heads in wonderment at Steffy's performance, but the only opinions he really cares about are his comrades inside the Beltway... and they're giving him a rousing thumbs up.
-
Life imitating... dare I say it... art?
[Read the article: My body, my choice, my art project?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I keep reminding myself of the Neil LaBute's "The Shape of Things". Not the entire movie, obviously -- just the end, where we find out it was all part of an art project. After seeing the movie I thought, "Twist ending, but it stretches credulity. No sensible advisor would ever allow a student to doing something that extreme for sheer shock value and dare to call it art."
I stand corrected.
-
Now, Endsville
[Read the article: WayLay]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It was published in "Now, Endsville", which by the way needs to be back in print ASAP.
-
Punk'd!!
[Read the article: My body, my choice, my art project?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Well, color me eight shades of red. I swallowed the story whole... did anybody tell Ms. Shvarts April Fool's was almost three weeks ago? If her point was to shock people that's she'd actually do that to her body, or making a statement about reproductive rights... well, I'm not sure WHAT her point was, frankly. If you were a teacher forced to grade on a pass-fail system, what grade would you give her?
-
The "We Are All Screwed" Democrats
[Read the article: The haunting of the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The same Sunday night Andrew "In my darkest moments" O'Hehir decides to let us all know his Xanax prescription ran out, John Seery of HuffPo has told us in no uncertain terms that the country should collectively commit nationwide seppuku and be done with it. And here I thought I was Mister Defeatist. Next to these guys I'm Pollyanna on smack.
-
Good? Bloodletting is good??
[Read the article: What Pennsylvania tells us]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]No, this is NOT "good". Not for the candidates, not for the party, and surely not for the country.
This protracted battle hasn't helped either side. Hillary (with a generous assist from the press) has successfully painted Obama as an effete snob, essentially destroying any chance he has of winning the rust belt in November. And by running the campaign she has, she's made sure there's no way on earth I could vote for her without getting a case of the dry heaves (I'd still vote for her, btw, but goddamn if I wont hate every second of it.)
Please explain again how any of this is "good". What new and perverse definition of the word are you using??
-
Why Olbermann did it
[Read the article: Keith Olbermann apologizes for his Clinton remark]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This, from Gawker:
"During the 1990s, Richard Mellon Scaife spent millions of dollars to dig up all kinds of dirt on Bill and Hillary Clinton, including about Bill's sexual misconduct and the Clinton's investment in the Whitewater real estate development. At the time, Hillary said the media attacks Scaife funded were part of a "vast right wing conspiracy," but now she thinks the whole thing was just hilarious. MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann reminded Clinton that he once left MSNBC because he was so upset over coverage of the attacks on Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton kept laughing. Olbermann told her he wasn't joking. Clinton kept laughing. "I do believe in redemption, Keith," Clinton said. "I believe in deathbed conversions." Deathbeds are funny, so Clinton kept laughing."
Olbermann takes things personally -- too personally, frankly. That thin-skinned nose of his is notorious for getting cut off to spite his face. Rightly or wrongly, he took Hillary's dismissal of as a personal affront. It was a textbook way to make an enemy of Olbermann, but if there's we've all learned by now, it's that Hillary doesn't give a damn about one more media adversary.
We get the satisfaction of hearing yet another one of MSNBC's Bully Boys issue an apology. Good. Olbermann needed to apologize. The charges of sexism and Clinton-bashing from the media are true and deserve to be called out.
But there's another point that's being avoided entirely: why did Keith get so upset in the first place? Easy. Because Hillary took something that was dear to him - the defense of people with ideals he respected - and had it thrown back in his face with a cackle. Who would just slough that off with a "ho hum"? If Olbermann felt like he was being mocked for something he took too much to heart, well, then I feel it too. That sort of righteous anger is palpable, even if the violent talk that followed wasn't acceptable in the least.
What I'd like to see from Ms. Walsh is not only a repudiation of Hillary's tactics but her complete abandonment of all her ideals. That's what has been infuriating about her campaign from day one. How many countless letters in the blogosphere have been dedicated to this topic? What is the point in being a Democrat if we're forced to vote for a candidate who stands for nothing but her own personal gain? If you want to know why we're grasping at Obama, it's because he's the only one left in the field who reminds us what we're supposed to fighting for; Hillary's already happily cozied up to the vermin she once fought against.
Where's that essay, Ms. Walsh?