Letters to the Editor

This letter is associated with the following article:
Read other letters about this article
Hillary's bridge back to the 20th century
With recession looming, Clinton banks on '90s nostalgia, reminding Pennsylvania voters of the good old days of her husband's administration.
By Mike Madden [2008-04-03]

  • Could Someone at Salon Explain To Me...

    I came into this conversation late, so when I read TishiJo's response to ScepticalGeek's Patriot Act nonsense I searched for Geek's original post wondering, "Is the vitriol coming out of the Clinton camp so thick that a supporter would fantasize about Obama being on the wromg side of the Patriot Act when he wasn't even in the Senate?" Well, I was even more astonished to find that Salon's Letters to the Editor people gave the comment a red star.

    I am not one of those readers who says Salon is biased one way or the other when it comes to the race for the Democratic Nomination, but honestly, how can you give a red star to a factually incorrect post such as ScepticalGeek's? I would think that, since one has the choice of reading only "Editor's Choice" letters, that Salon would prefer to avoid awarding posts that are woefully inaccurate--or at least you'd also select those letters that correct wild accusations. Is it that those responsible for the "Editor's Choice" are as ill-informed. I expect more from y'all. Some poor slob may be at the water cooler tomorrow sounding like an idiot about Obama's "support" for the Patriot Act based on his/her assumption that those red stars mean something. Get your shit together, people. Or, am I wrong?

    -- rampart
    [Read rampart's other letters]
    Thursday, April 3, 2008 04:32 PM
Read other letters about this article

Letters Help