Letters to the Editor
-
@ModerationInAll
Good points EXCEPT for saying that you would actually ever vote for Huckabee for ANYTHING because he has "grace." If you are concerned at all about women's rights, identities, and autonomy you could not possibly consider that. He's a wacked-out religious zealot who's been to charm school. Step away from the Kool-aid.
-
Go Hillary!
Totally agree with the observation about Matthews. He also snidely noted that perhaps "sympathy" would lead her to victory in NH -- sympathy generated from the "pile on" at the debate Saturday night and "crying" earlier in the week (I've watched that video and fail to see how it can be described as crying). Not her personality, platform, experience, just feeling bad for the beleagured woman and wanting to come to her rescue. What an insult to voters!
I too am not a Hillary supporter, but I am damn glad she won last night. It makes for a better race and better candidates (and lets a few other states in on the process). And I too have taken notice at how unbelievably giddy the press has been about her supposed demise. The woman has to have balls of steel to put up with what she does on a daily basis and I, for one, am glad she does.
-
Barak, you're my hero!
There would seem to be only two explanations for Matthews' enthusiasm in his coverage of Obama: either he has regressed to the emotional level of a pre-teen girl or perhaps he just needs to take a couple of steps out of the closet.
-
Yes Yes Yes
Rebecca:
You got this exactly right. I too, am not a Clinton supporter--don't like her policy, but if I had been forced to vote yesterday, I think there's a good chance I might have cast it for her. My mom too was "sad". She will definitely be voting for Clinton now.The pundit reaction was sickening to me. I'm glad I wasn't because I think we should vote on policy. And I liked both Obama and Edwards less for their responses--Obama's body language certitude, and Edwards' unnecessary strength comment. Still voting for Edwards--still like his policy best.
-
The illustration
Zach Trenholm's illustration is a real travesty.
I agree. I think the picture was drawn before the NH primary, and was intended to head some completely different article, one about Clinton's political demise. As someone else pointed out here, Hillary did not actually shed a tear. That doesn't seem to matter, however.
However the Salon staff didn't expect the news to turn out the way it did, and got caught doing the same thing that the rest of the media does: trying to predict the news so they can make a timely deadline. They were so sure of it they did not prepare another picture.
That's my guess anyway.
-
Thank you Rebecca.
This was my intro to Rebecca. Terrific writing. I'll be looking to hear more from her. Though Greenwald is probably right about the protective barrier that keeps Matthews on the air, it would be interesting to see if there is enough backlash from viewers to put at least a dent in his chauvinism. On the other hand, particularly if Obama strengthens his position, some in his fan base could make Chris more adored. Already some of Obama's supporters are out there claiming election fraud and how they so enjoy the way Chris needles "the witch". This, from a group whose leader espouses unity among factions as his principle message. I think I'd support Obama more if he would decry some of his supporters, including those in the media. We'll see.
James
-
Salon's Own Flying Monkeys
Some of the guys at Salon better look out for that dropping house, too!
-
Great Article
Great article Rebecca.
Your ending line was marvelous!
-
Matthews- worse night ever
Not only Brokaw. Matthews was taken to task by Oberman and Rachel Maddow as well. I do not recall a more humiliating evening for a national bobblehead.
I am in the group that does not want HRC to win, but thought the MSM was out of control. So now the dance of death between the candidate and the press continues...
-
media and Hillary
I watched the returns on ABC, and virtually every male commentator seemed annoyed when discussing Hillary's victory in New Hampshire. They kept saying how the Clinton team was sure to jump on this as a "comeback," like Bill's. I don't think the media hates Hillary, but I think covering her brings back a lot of memories of how difficult the Clintons were regarding the press. I was glad when Obama won Iowa, but was also glad when Hillary won New Hampshire. I have to say I like them both, and will probably have difficulty voting int he primary. I really hope that whichever doesn't become the nominee becomes the Veep. I think they'd make a great team.
-
Yes, I agree...another "maybe, maybe not" Clinton supporter who is defensive on her behalf (and a woman)
Yup. I am cheered in a way that women in NH seemed to rally to support a woman...sometimes in the "post feminist" era where it is not common for women to be willing to think of themselves as feminists, I wonder if that kind of sisterly rallying exists...I think it does. Maybe sisterly is even the wrong word...women were not defending Hillary but defending OURSELVES.
Seemed pretty clear to me, an educated professional woman who works full time that the sexist double standards ramped up hard in the press after Iowa, and I would like to puke everytime I hear the media raise the "likeability" question...why is that not being asked of any other candidate (or media pundit)? But women do understand this double standard and Catch 22...I'm glad Hillary remains a viable candidate and just hope her own (mostly male) handlers don't get the wrong idea and decide to humliate her (and us) further by deciding that crying and emoting is now a "Strategy" for the campaign that they expect her to perform. Let this smart, successful Senator, have her dignity, and win or lose based on her merits...like the men.
-
Hillary would be the best candidate for the future of science
Now look at Salon -- an economics reporter, a technology reporter, and no science reporter.
That's just like Obama's website -- technology, economics and no information whatsoever on how he would fund science.
Then look at Hillary's website -- she wants to increase the NSF and DOE budgets by 50%, and return American physics to its former glory.
And she wants to double funding for the NIH.
What do all these men want? I don't see that the male candidates have any ideas about what kind of funding we need to bring American science out of its tragic decline under Bush.