Letters to the Editor
BadgerBlue
Published Letters: 193 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Smith, and your point is?
[Read the article: Stay classy, John Edwards ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Smith, that's a weak attempt and the only one that cares about the technicality of "tears" or not is probably you. It doesn't even address the merits or the context of the letter's assessment and worse, you probably know that and posted it anyway. I have in fact once looked at a National Enquirer and once was all it took to realize that it comes off almost as out-of-left field as some of your personal attacks on those who's views seem to encroach the narrative you are constantly making desperate attempts to have control over here. You obviously haven't learned the lesson that Clinton's campaign can't seem to grasp either. Trying to constantly force gender identity angles in any medium in attempts to claim some kind of high ground over anybody with an alternative view to yours usually ends up defining you in a bad light instead of others.
That is just one of the very transparent and negative strategies Clinton's campaign has employed over and over this year and it's a bad strategy that has made her "less likeable" as a result. If you haven't caught on to that by now, I can only speculate that you can't look at it in an objective manner much the same as Clinton's circle can't. For the idea of trying to paint Edwards and anybody who's fine with what he said as insensitive or out of line to have any basis, there would have to be a consensus that Clinton is a victim of what he said. If these letters are any indicator, it doesn't appear that in any way would be the case. Edmund Muskie was once shown overcome with emotion in an era that was far more restrained than what passes for acceptable today in the political arena and nobody shed a tear for him when he was tagged with the "not tough enough" label.
And he ran a hell of a lot more honest and "classy" campaign than the clown act Clinton keeps trying to trot out. She tries to claim she's a fighter while she lets underlings hurl mud. That's not playing "tough", that's just playing dirty. That might be one of the reasons Edwards said it. He knows the victim card hasn't worked for her every single time she and her defenders like you try to use it. He knows it always backfires with so many voters and that she doesn't.
-
Patrick Morgan, I'll gladly award you a star.
[Read the article: Stay classy, John Edwards ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, I just back on since I last posted yesterday and I had to laugh out loud. I mean you gotta wonder if maybe they were handing out the stars in an effort to entice some others to write similar anti-Edwards foaming-at-the-mouth rants so that the final tally wouldn't look so incredibly stacked against this piece. Hey, look at the bright side. At least we know somebody working for Salon at least had to go through the letters section. I think it's safe to say at least somebody there can't deny that the overwhelming response from the readers' letters was that they were not impressed with the offering.
Smith, I'm even less impressed with your latest offerings as well. What was that? Three rambling posts aimed my way? First, it's not a question of opinion by consensus. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that a majority of posters here can read an article, draw a conclusion completely on his or her own free of anyone else and yet all reach the same conclusion and form a consensus especially when the subject matter was offered to readers in a polarizing form where the reactions to it usually will not range past "either-or".
In addition, it's of absolutely no concern to myself and I'm willing to bet no concern to nearly everybody else here whether you "don't especially like" me or not. It's one thing to waste your time, but at least have the common decency to respect the hundreds of others that come here who may not want to have to waste thier valuable time reading whatever personal feelings you can't manage to keep to yourself when they expect letters to revolve around the the article written. This is not your personal forum. It's here for the entire Salon membership community and I'm sure it's darn near a 100% majority that aren't coming here to put up with having to look at who you "especially like" or don't. By wasting thier time with nonsense about how you feel personally towards me or anybody else here for that matter, you selfishly dilute the content that other paying subscribers come here for.
Do you think your personal feelings toward someone here really come ahead of respect for the rest of the group as a whole. If you do, that's a shame for you...and unfotunately, for everybody else that comes here. Try to keep in mind that the community here is more than just yourself.