Letters to the Editor
-
Edwards: "Special Interests For Me, But Not For Thee."
Did Edwards have anything to say about trial lawyer money?
What about union money?
And hedge fund money?
Or News Corp money?
I didn't think so. Sigh.
-
Too bad he's not an African American handicapped lesbian Marxist
Salon would have a statue of him erected at Berkeley.
-
The Psychic Network School of Journalism?
I take offense at the extreme cynicism and baseless interpretations that Michael Sherer attaches to the positions of John Edwards.
For instance:
After Clinton made the ridiculous statement that lobbyists actually represent most of us folks, as Sherer puts it:
"Edwards sent an open letter to Obama,
asking him to join in calling for the
Democratic Party to ban all lobbyist contributions
to any federal candidate or committee,
a clear ploy designed to tarnish Obama's
appeal as a reformer.
Since when does asking others to make it an ethical playing field by giving up corporate shill money constitute a "ploy to tarnish" the other candidates?
This article is full of similarly snarky and baseless "clairvoyance" regarding the motives and actions of Edwards.
It's a sad day when ethics, compassion, intelligence, sincereity, and above all an understanding that the President of the United States should represent those of us who aren't political elitists or the greedy corporations that prop them up is viewed as no more than a "ploy".
I am not in any way disparaging Clinto or Obama. I respect and admire them both.
However, to paint Edwards' positions as "ploys", when they are the least self-serving on the current campaign table is a dispicable, unprofessional, and blatantly transparent page right out of (in addition to the mind-reading theory) the Bill O'Reilly Big Book of Commentary For Dummies.
-
They're all bums and they should be in Washington doing their jobs instead of looking for a new one
That said, I could probably hold my nose and vote for Edwards if there isn't anyone better. It wouldn't take a great deal to do better. Oh, and by the way, he's running for office, so he's SUPPOSED to be comparing and contrasting issues with his OPPONENTS. Sheesh.
I could possibly vote for Obama if I could learn more about his professional political performance history, and not just the fluff pieces in 30 second sound bites.
I flatly will not vote for Clinton and it has nothing to do with her sex. She is hard core right wing authoritarian, a hard core hawk, tied to military industrial complex, votes business over people, carpet bagged New York to set up her run for the presidency rather than to do the job she was elected for, and she's a spineless political weather vane. We've already seen the first draft of her health care policy, which was fucking ghastly. We now have a year and a half for major interests to get their bids in, so there's no way of telling how the next draft will look.
I gather that Michael Scherer and Salon like her though. I started reading Salon a long time ago for its fairly dispassionate political analysis. It now looks like Salon is turning into a bunch of pro-Clinton bloggers. If you want to stay relevant, Salon, clean up your act.
-
Ooops...
And this is why I am not a proofreader..I always see the mistakes AFTER I hit publish. Clinton, despicable. Maybe more. Please excuse my haste. Thanks.
-
I want to build a time machine
And bring back Gus Hall from the dead and elect him President of the Free Democratic People's Republic of Salon.
-
Nita Martin
All of Edwards' noise about banning lobbyist donations is a 'ploy' because it doesn't mean anything. Its pure show. Lobbyists don't get influence by virtue of thier personal donations. They can't donate any more than any other individual. Has Edwards suggested refusing contributions from corporations or interest groups? No, of course not.
And Clinton did NOT say that lobbyists "actually represent most of us folks". This is what she said:
"You know, a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans, they actually do. They represent nurses, they represent social workers, they represent—yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people"
They also represent teachers, firemen, policemen, black people, hispanic people, old people, young people, trees, endangered species, etc. . .
-
By way of contrast . . .
Obama is also refusing money from lobbyists but his campaign openly admits that this is nothing but a symbolic gesture meant to illustrate the kind of administration he hopes to have. That is an honest stance, while Edwards' is manipulative and deceptive.
-
Good
The first thing he has said that - in concert with other libertarian ideas - I may consider him over Hillary...
Barach Osama is just a poser I now see,
The choices narrow.
-
Karen M.
Genius, a true pipe dream in every way.
Wish for Hope, I will.
Supreme Court of The United States of America Hillary - moderate, thoughtful, genius, -Clinton.
Too good to be true for all mankind.
-
I'm for Hope, Too
I agree with the other posters, though not with so much vitriol (damn people!) that the piece had an unnecessarily snarky tone, though I would point out that the inflammatory headline is probably the editors' fault.
That said, I thought the bit from Saunders about Obama was pretty funny. I know it's not completely fair, but it does crystallize why I'm not a huge fan.
As for Obama, Saunders thought the Illinois senator had yet to establish his goals in concrete terms. "Obama hasn't said enough," Saunders insisted. "He's for hope. I'm for hope. You can quote me on that. That's all I know about Obama."
-
It's the corruption stupid
Edwards is right. It's the corrpution stupid and he is the only candidate with a rock solid history of standing up to corporate corruption and power abuse.
Secondly he is the only one who will INFLICT a well deserved beating on the GOP power base and can take them on in their own territory. If you don't want to sit around another election night watching the teevee people turn every state red, Edwards is the best candidate.
Third, he's shown personal courage and character that I don't see in the others.
Fourth, it's his job to take on the other candidates' positions.
-
Edwards is the Democrats' most electable candidate
John Edwards is right to draw the distinctions he has. If Senator Clinton is the candidate she will be beholden to the pharmaceutical industry and the usual nine white guys who rule the world. AND, more significantly, she will energize the Republican base and they will get out of their easy chairs and go to the polls to vote against her. Unfortunately the same may be true for Obama with our country's many racists..they will be moved to move and go to the polls and vote Republican. John Edwards is the most viable progressive in the race. Kucinich is great but he does not seem to be catching on (maybe because he's short and maybe because he won't take any corporate money). Why do you think Rove is out there tooting about Hillary? He is hoping that his slamming her will get her the nomination because he knows that the people who strongly dislike her will turn out to vote against her.