Letters to the Editor
-
end the careers of so many jerks, like Matthews, Russert and their little constellation of also-rans
I'll try to stay alive long enough to see that, Ron.
Thanks.
-
A good case in point tonight Ron, was Soledad O'Brian
She's doing a duo with CNN's main pollster, can't think of his name, and he's talking about the number of Republicans and Democrats who during the exit polls told his teams that it was the economy they were most interested in.
So good ol' Soledad, who has a brain about the size of a cashew, says, "But what about race! Let's look at race!"
And so there you go, it all comes down to the lowest common denominator. Economy = boring. Race = controversy.
The cashew brains win every time.
-
Who is the biggest loser?
It is a matter of great satisfaction to me that the biggest loser of the night is Senator Ted Kennedy.
-
From Joan Walsh
About Ted Kennedy, I'll only say: Any candidate that uses a white politician as a stand-in for a Latino leader deserves to lose California. And I'm sorry, Garry Owen, that you think I'm spending too much time on race, but I've lived here more than half my life and these questions are a matter of respect.
-
There is something amusing...
There is something amusing about seeing the head editor of a fairly large website getting so irritated that they have to actually get down and dirty amongst the savage jungle that is any internet comment forum. That said, your last statement there Joan, that anyone who uses a white surrogate to get out the Latino vote deserves to lose, is amusing enough considering the constant high-holy praise of Bill Clinton and black people as one and the same(and how he has consistently not done diddly jack to dispel any of the racism displayed in SC...you think people forget in a week?). And considering some of the dunces that have been appointed or elected from my own ethnic community (Alberto Gonzales and Mel Martinez I spit on you), I'd probably take a slightly more illuminated white guy over any of them.
Either way, at the end of the day, the nomination fight continues on, in probably what will continue to be one of the oddest and most exhausting races that America has seen in years.
-
From Joan Walsh
Thanks for your thoughts, Sean. I do participate more than editors of other large sites. I always have. Are you saying you think that's beneath me? I have never thought so. I think it's part of what makes Salon...Salon.
-
@garry owen
Hi Garry,
<<A good case in point tonight Ron, was Soledad O'Brian
She's doing a duo with CNN's main pollster, can't think of his name, and he's talking about the number of Republicans and Democrats who during the exit polls told his teams that it was the economy they were most interested in.
So good ol' Soledad, who has a brain about the size of a cashew, says, "But what about race! Let's look at race!">>
Isn't she the worst? If her brain is a cashew, I'd still say that's oversized for her particular intellectual ability. On second thought, it's pretty hard to decide who's the worst, there's so much competition. Still, she is a good example of what's wrong with the media, since she's such a clear distillation of their current "thinking." In a slightly more rational world, anyone who had her as an employee would be horribly embarrassed, but I think the media moguls we have now are somewhere beyond being embarrassed (or ashamed).
--Ron
-
@Joan Walsh
<<From Joan Walsh
Thanks for your thoughts, Sean. I do participate more than editors of other large sites. I always have. Are you saying you think that's beneath me? I have never thought so. I think it's part of what makes Salon...Salon.>>
Actually, I don't think that's his point at all. It seemed to me he was amused by what could be taken as your tone, which seemed particularly exasperated.
That said, I disagree with Sean's larger point, which is that Clinton (either of them) have acted in a racist manner. Even the infamous (and in my view, moderately foolish, given the propensity of the media to make shit up, and assign motives they can't possibly know) comment by Clinton about SC I don't think was racist.
We have two very good democratic candidates. I wish more people could see that, and quit making out as evil the one they don't support, or worse, making out as saintly the one they do support. Why do I think the latter is worse? Because you're sure to be deeply disillusioned when/if they actually have the chance to practice what they preach.
Though I don't think this will happen, if Clinton wins the nomination, she'd be very smart to offer, and Obama would be very smart to accept the VP spot. He'd be a particularly good VP (and look at all the VP powers he'd have now, thanks to Cheney, heh heh, since the VP now seems to have more power than the presidency!). 8 years of a Clinton/Obama presidency could very well end both racial and gender bias as any potent force. While I think Obama would be an OK president now, I think in 8 years he could be an extremely good president, one of the best ever. He'd have lots of practical experience, and it'd be wonderful to think we have 16 years ahead of us of a more rational presidency.
I do think Clinton would be the best choice for president now, better now than 8 years from now if my scenario were reversed. I have no illusions she's perfect, and I'm sure there will be plenty I vehemently disagree with her on as a president, but i think she's at the prime of her competency, and she knows her stuff. Like I said, I wouldn't always agree with her conclusions, but i don't have to, overall I am convinced she's what's needed to start the reversal of the nightmarish previous 8 years, moreso than Obama. In oversimplified terms, Clinton's practicality lays the groundwork for Obama's soaring changes (and please, no morons telling me that this means I think Obama is not practical or some other crap I've not stated).
So as a democrat, one can decide: is Obama going to degrade as a candidate in 8 years, or get better? I think he'll get better, in fact, be at his absolute best. I'd rather have him as president when he's at his absolute best.
--Ron
-
HRC - The Womans Champion
In sync with McCain on the war:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-19-iraq-senators_x.htm
-
His Charisma does NOT translate into spanish
It's that simple.
the chatter, the wailing, the endless praising of the new Kennedy (a good thing....I guess) just sounds like a lot of noise to Latinos.
It does NOT translate.
For most Latinos he's just another politician asking for their vote, albeit without making much effort to get it.
After all his excuses for waiting so long don't hold water. He put us last, because he thought Latinos were not important.
Oh and he's also saying the wrong things in regards to immigration. He's listening to the very vocal, extreme left who think all Latinos are naturally super-sympathetic to illegals.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The sympathy we have extends to family, but NOT to the issue at large.
The real irony is Native Born, AMERICAN Latinos suffer just as much from illegal immigration as any other group, if not more so. For the illegals compete for their jobs especially hard.
If you think this is scapegoating, you're an idiot and fool.
It's reality. A reality that the upper-income, elitist white liberals who hail Obama as the savior have absolutely NO experience with, because NO illegal will ever take their job.
So his offer to provide driver's licenses probably landed with a dull thud in the Latino community.
It received the collective yawn it deserved as yet another example of a non-Latino assuming an illegal Latino immigrant and a Native Born AMERICAN Latino are 2 sides of the same coin.
Such ignorance is best rewarded by voting for the other candidate. Who clearly showed she knew who we were/are as a community, and invested resources from day one in getting our vote.