Letters to the Editor
-
Lost in a Right Wing World
You put me on notice when at 35 min. you noted that the Debate was sponsored by Coors. Coors is a Republican run Right Wing Company. Then at 72 min. you totaly lost me when you called the sponsors the "good people at Coors". How can you have a serious Democratic Debate under these circumstances? The media is wholly owned by Rebublicans and that is why our country is in such trouble. They look for every opportunity to make the Democrats look bad and the Republicans look good. By the way which way does Salon lean? Did Rupert buy you too?
-
It is not about the question
Mike Scherer did a hilarious job in summing up the debate. I watched it last night and the main idea that came up is, even if you make the questions more interesting, the answers are going to be the same. So, yes… I liked the questions even after a main stream media edited the content. As cynical as it may be, it is not getting us anywhere in substance. Here is a way to make watching debates more fun. All of us following politics can play the following game: assuming you own a Tivo, when a question is asked, pause and answer the question yourself depending on who is answering. Then score yourself on how close you were to the answers given. I bet that you can score high and use identical words 80% of the time! Am I a good presidential candidate or what? Give me a break when the emphasis is always on what should be done. The question that never gets answered is, can it be done? I would fix social security and Middle East crisis too! It took 10 years to raise $1.50 (still not done) in minimum wage. You still trust that any of these guys will raise it to $10 in next 4 years! The democrats are better choice over republicans any day. The less chance they have in getting elected, more radical they get in their ideas. All I need is a pledge that, I candidate X hereby solemnly swear that if I do not get the following definitive list of things done, I am going to resign and retire from politics. Not like, I am Chris Dodd, the white hair guy who is clinging to the Senate because I don’t know how to get bankrupt in any other business; I will try to be the president this time because people told me that I cannot have any more gray hairs by staying in senate. Or I Denis Kucinich got elected every time with all these radical ideas because I stayed in the same house I bought for $20,000 and my young wife hates it. Or I Hillary Clinton, take pledge to use all the right sound bites to practice being presidential and by the way, you have already elected me your president when you were asleep. Or, I Bill Richardson who did everything right in 50 jobs I tried so far and still got fired; I want to play this “who wants to be the president?” game show this time.
-
now it becomes clear
I see from other commenters that Mr Scherer is a big Hillary fan. that certainly explains his vicious attacks on any of the candidates that actually have something to say. Of course, the assumption by corporate media of them being second string candidates probably makes them feel they (the candidates) have nothing to lose but still his treatment of Kucinich and Gravel is far beneath the standards here at the Salon.
if the Democrats want to lose the next presidential election, and there is actually a good case to be made for the merits of such an action, then by all means run Hillary. I will bet large amounts of money on that race and I know I will win because both the Dems and the Reps will make sure the fix is in.
Hillary supporters are either crossover Republicans like Joe Lieberman supporters or suckers.
-
Clinton is NOT progressive.
Sen. Clinton's discussion of the difference between liberal and progressive was not "eloquent and concise." It was tortured and wrong. For the best, brief evidence that Clinton is nowhere near what turn-of-the-century progressives stood for, see the first paragraph of another Salon story today, the one on the new Feingold bio. A true "modern progressive" would push campaign finance reform, ethics in government, and voting reform though the heavens fall. These are hardly central tenets of the Clinton campaign, to say the least.
-
what will your third party represent that does not already have voice somewhere in the government now?
Um...small, fiscally responsable government.
-
KcM
I second your comments. It's shameful that Senator Clinton feels the need to hijack the term "progressive", as if anything she does is remotely covered by that term. She backed the war in Iraq (and continues to dodge whenever anyone tries to pin her with it), repeatedly engages in red-herring causes like videogame violence when there are serious issues to deal with, and now she wants to call herself a progressive?
If there were a truly progressive candidate with a chance in hell of getting elected, I would cast my vote there in a hot second. (Kucinich was clearly the only candidate on that stage who can honestly call himself a "progressive".)Unfortunately, the situation in this country has gotten so grave and dangerous that I cannot in good conscience cast my vote with any candidate who doesn't have the numbers. I wish it weren't that way. I wish America were not being bludgeoned and bullied into submission by the creatures who hold office today, but that's the reality of things. Until we're no longer in danger of being destroyed as a nation by the cadre of traitors that are gutting everything this country once stood for, I will be, very sadly, voting against rather than for.
-
Try, try again
I want to like and/or respect John Edwards, even if I never get to the point of actually wanting to support him for the presidency. But every time I get a little closer, something smarmy oozes out of his mouth and I'm back to the starting line. During this event I'd been through the cycle at least twice, but he left me with the pink jacket "joke." Had I been Senator Clinton, it would have proved irresistible to say, "You don't have to like my jacket, John. By the way, cute haircut."