Letters to the Editor
-
This is negative?
Mr. Madden states that:
"Obama wasn't sticking to the high road, as he previously sought to do."
He supports this with the following quotes: "She is a hardworking public servant, but Senator Clinton does not understand the need to fundamentally change how Washington works," and "We can't have lobbyists and special interests setting the agenda in Washington."
Those are negative attacks??? Seriously?
Madden states that: "His campaign was running ads implying Clinton was using "fear and calculation to divide us" and making its own harsh phone calls to prospective supporters.""
Assuming the fear and calculation exist (and I think her 11th hour ad shows that that's exactly the case), how is it negative to point out that one's opponent is going negative? Isn't that just a statement of fact?
Where is the evidence of the "harsh phone calls to prospective supporters"? Nowhere in this article.
COME ON SALON! You continue to conflate journalism and editorializing. Admittedly, its the brave new world of internet news, but you do all of us a disservice by by not having a dedicated op/ed section, and by allowing your writers to put whatever the hell they want into their articles with what increasingly appears to be either no editorial oversight, or--worse--biased editorial oversight.
Mr. Madden's spin is completely unsupported by the evidence he sites. Shoddy. Despicable.
Increasingly unsurprising.